Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27367 (KAR)

SRI. SRIDHARA RAO SHINDE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/6170/2023 · 2025-01-24

S R Krishna Kumar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3118 CRL.P No. 6170 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6170 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. SRIDHARA RAO SHINDE S/OS RI SHANKAR RAO SHINDE AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO 15/19, BHAVANI SHANKARI KRUPA MAHARA ROAD, ROBERTSONPET KGF - 563122 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH GOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ROBERTSONPET POLICE STATION KGF - 563122 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 560001 2. SMT SUJATHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS WORKING AS TASILDHAR, KGF TALUK, KGF - 563122 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. M.M.WAHEEDA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS, IN C.C.NO.226/2023, IN CR.NO.148/2022, FOR THE P/U/S 504 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL JMFC KGF, CASE Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3118 CRL.P No. 6170 of 2023 REGISTERED BY ROBERTSONPET POLICE STATION, KGF / RESPONDENT NO.1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition is preferred by the petitioner - accused seeking quashing of the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.226/2023 pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, KGF for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 - complainant, who was working as a Tahsildhar in KGF, filed a complaint on 30.08.2022 against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. In this context, a perusal of the complaint will indicate that except for vaguely and baldly stating that the petitioner had used unparliamentarily language against respondent No.2, the impugned cryptic and laconic complaint does - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3118 CRL.P No. 6170 of 2023 not make out ingredients so as to attract the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC against the petitioner. 4. In this context, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Dhirendra Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIRONLINE 2024 ALL 276, wherein it is held as under: "29. Insofar as the case against the applicant under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is to be seen that Section 504 IPC reads as under :- "504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.--Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." 30. It is to be noted that Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code provides that whoever intentionally insults and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence then the aforesaid offence come within the meaning of intentional insult with the intent to provoke - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3118 CRL.P No. 6170 of 2023 breach of peace. It is to be seen that in the present case, as per complaint, the only allegations are that abusive language was used by the applicants, however, the nature of abusive language has neither been elaborated in the complaint nor in the statements of witnesses. The Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and another Vs State of U.P. in Criminal Appeal No 2340 of 2023 decided on 8.8.2023 (AIR 2023 SC 3784) has observed that:- "Section 504 of the IPC contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive language is used intentionally and is of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of events lead the person insulted to break the peace or to commit an offence under the law, the case is not taken away from the purview of the Section merely because the insulted person did not actually break the peace or commit any offence having exercised self control or having been subjected to abject terror by the offender. In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3118 CRL.P No. 6170 of 2023 be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant." 31. The complainant in his complaint has not stated the nature of abusive language used by the applicants. The allegations in the complaint in this respect are wholly vague in nature. It has not been stated in the complaint that the abusive language used by the applicants was of such nature as would have in ordinary course of events let person insulted to the break the peace or commit an offence under the law. Mere use of abusive language or being discourteous to the opponent or rude would not by itself amount to any intention insult within the meaning of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. It has to be shown that the nature of abusive language or insult is such as is likely to insult a person or to commit breach of peace or commit an offence. In the facts and circumstances of the case where the complainant has not disclosed the nature of abusive language used by applicants & general and vague allegations with regard to the language has been made in the complaint without specification then it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3118 CRL.P No. 6170 of 2023 The court concerned has incorrectly summoned the accused - applicants under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 32. In view of discussions made herein above, the summoning order dated 7.12.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhognipur, District - Kanpur Dehat in Complaint Case No. 877 of 2016 (Baburam Vs Dhirendra and others) insofar the said order issues summon under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code against applicants is set aside. The above-mentioned summoning order dated 7.12.2016 to the extent it issue summons to the applicant under Sections 379 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. The court concerned is directed to proceed with the case under Sections 379 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code in accordance with law. 33. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants is partly allowed and the court concerned is permitted to proceed with the summoning order dated 7.12.2016 in respect of offence under Sections 379 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and not to proceed in respect of offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants." The Allahabad High Court, followed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2023 SC (CRI) 1153. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3118 CRL.P No. 6170 of 2023 The Apex Court also pointed out that in judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504 IPC, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. 5. In the instant case, the material on record indicates that the petitioner was merely repeatedly approaching respondent No.2 in relation to pending work and in the absence of necessary ingredients under Section 504 of IPC, the petitioner cannot be charged with the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC in the facts and circumstances of the instant case and continuation of the same qua the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 6. Hence, the following: ORDER a. The petition is hereby allowed. b. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.226/2023 pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3118 CRL.P No. 6170 of 2023 Judge and Principal JMFC, KGF is quashed qua the petitioner. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE RB