- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9074 CRL.P No. 12248 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12248 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SMT. GEETA RASTOGI, W/O SRI. SURESH CHANDRA RASTOGI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.801, 6A MAIN, ISRO LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.M.SRINIVASAREDDY., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT P.S., THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2024 PASSED BY THE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-63) IN CRL.RP.NO.876/2018. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9074 CRL.P No. 12248 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who is the mother-in-law, filed a private complaint alleging that the accused, her daughter-in-law, sent a letter by post containing abusive language directed at her family members and further threatened them with dire consequences. 2. Upon conducting an investigation, the police submitted a ‘B’ report, stating that the allegations made in the complaint were baseless and lacked any substantive evidence. Consequently, the police recommended that no further action be taken. Aggrieved by the ‘B’ report, the petitioner filed a protest petition. The Trial Court, after recording the sworn statement of the petitioner and considering the documents produced at that stage, accepted the ‘B’ report and rejected the protest petition. The petitioner subsequently filed a revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before the Sessions Court. However, the Sessions Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the order of the Trial Court accepting the ‘B’ report. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Sessions Court passed the impugned order without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. He further argued that the sworn statement of the petitioner, coupled with the documentary evidence produced, clearly established the commission of offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Therefore, he submitted that - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9074 CRL.P No. 12248 of 2024 the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is legally unsustainable and warrants interference. 4. In response, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the Sessions Court, after due consideration of the case, rightly concluded that the allegations made in the complaint were purely imaginary and devoid of any substance. He contended that there was no material evidence on record to substantiate the petitioner’s claims, and hence, the impugned order did not call for any interference by this Court. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties and have perused the records of the case. 6. It is evident from the proceedings before the Sessions Court that the accused had filed an application seeking to be impleaded in the matter. The case was initially set for the pronouncement of the order on the application for impleading. However, without granting the petitioner a fair opportunity to present her case, the Sessions Court proceeded to pass the impugned order. 7. Be that as it may, even if the allegations made by the petitioner are accepted at face value, they do not fulfill the essential ingredients required to constitute offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. In order to establish an offence under Section 504 IPC, it must be demonstrated that the intentional insult was of such a nature that it provoked the complainant or any other person to commit a breach of public - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9074 CRL.P No. 12248 of 2024 peace or another offence. Similarly, for an offence under Section 506 IPC to be made out, there must be a clear and credible threat to cause injury, creating a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the complainant. In the present case, there is no allegation or material on record to suggest that the alleged insult resulted in a breach of public peace or led to the commission of any other offence by the petitioner. 8. In view of the above findings, I do not find any illegality, irregularity, or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court. The order of the Trial Court accepting the ‘B’ report and rejecting the protest petition was based on a proper appreciation of the facts and law, and therefore, does not warrant any interference. 9. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9