- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4218 CRL.P No. 100090 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100090 OF 2024 BETWEEN: RAMESH S/O KRISHNAPPA KAROSHI AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOME-GUARD R/O.TUNGAL – 587 330 TQ.JAMAKHANDI DIST. BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH THROUGH JAMAKHANDI TOWN P.S. 2. SMT. VIDYA M. KERUR AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. POLICE OFFICER R/O. JAMKHANDI – 587 301 TQ.JAMAKHANDI DIST. BAGALKOT. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4218 CRL.P No. 100090 of 2024 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R-1 (VC); R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1190/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMAKHANDI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 353, 506 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.1190 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri Prashant S Kadadevar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: The 2nd respondent, Police Inspector of Jamkhandi Town police station is the complainant. A complaint comes to be - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4218 CRL.P No. 100090 of 2024 registered on 21-2-2023 alleging that the petitioner who was working as a home guard has raised his voice demanding certain documents from the hands of the complainant. Based upon such act of raising of voice, the complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner in crime No.24 of 2023 for the afore-quoted offences. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioner and the concerned Court registers it as C.C.No.1190 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the IPC. The registration of the criminal case is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in this subject petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Prashant S Kadadevar would submit that except raising of the voice, there is no other allegation against the petitioner. The incident of raising of voice is blown out of proportion by the police is his submission. 5. The 2nd respondent-complainant though served has remained unrepresented even today. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4218 CRL.P No. 100090 of 2024 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader representing the State would however refute the submission of the petitioner contending that there are about 5 eyewitnesses to the incident and therefore, it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner working as a home guard is a matter of record. The 2nd respondent complainant working as a Head Constable in the Jamkhandi town police station at the relevant point in time, is also a matter of record. The entire issue has sprung from an incident that has happened on 21-2-2023 which becomes the complaint registered by the 2nd respondent. The complaint reads as follows: “ೆ, ಾನ ಎಐ ಾೇಬರು ಜಮಖಂ ಶಹರ ೕ ಾೆ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4218 CRL.P No. 100090 of 2024 ಾನು ಾ ಎ! "ೆರೂರ ಡಬೂ%ಎ&'-1413 ವ)ಾ 38 ವಷ+ ಜಮಖಂ ಾ,-ೕಣ ೕಸ ಾೆ 01ೈ3 ನಂಬರ: 9739149452 ಗಣ5ೕಕರಣ ಾ "ೊಟ8 9)ಾ+: ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21.02.2023, -0- ಾನು ಜಮಖಂ ಾ,-ೕಣ ೕ ಾೆಯ% ಈಗ 4 =ಂಗ>?ಂದ ಡಬೂ%ಎ& ' ಅಂBಾ ಕತ+ವ ?ವ+Dಸು=EದುF, ಈ :ವಸ :ಾಂಕ 21.02.2023 ರಂದು ಮುಂGಾೆ 08.00 ಗಂHೆIಂದ ಮ ಾಹJ 14.00 ಗಂHೆಯವKೆೆ ಜಮಖಂ ಾ,-ೕಣ ೕ ಾೆಯ% ಎ ಎ& ಓ ಕತ+ವದ% ಇ ೆFನು. ನನJಂBೆ ಡಬೂ%N ' 1483 ಎO. ಾP"ಾರ ಇವರು ಪಹKೆ ಕತ+ವದ%, R,ೕ S.ಎ. SKಾ ಾರ ಎ.ಎ.ಐ ಮತುE ಎ.ಎ!. ಬೇರ ' ' 775 ಇವರು ತ?Tಾ ಸಾಯಕರು ಅಂBಾ ಾೆಯ% ಕತ+ವ ?ವ+Dಸು=EದFರು. 13.00 ಗಂHೆ ಸುಾUೆ ಒಬW ವ5E ಎ.ಎ.ಓ Hೇಬ3 ಹ=Eರ ಬಂದು Bಾನು ಾವಳY ಗೃಹ ರ[ಕ ದಳದ ಯು?\ ಆ ೕಸರ ಇದುF ನನJ ೆಸರು ರ^ೕಶ ತಂ ೆ ಕೃಷ_¥Àà ಕKೋ' ವ)ಾ 35 ವಷ+ ಾ: ತುಂಗಳ ಇರುತE ೆ. ನಮ` ಸಂಬಂaಕರ ಕೂ,ಸರ :ಾಂಕ 18.02.2023 ರಂದು ಹುbಾಳ ಹ=Eರ 0ೕHಾರ ೈಕಲದ ಸdಾರ?ೆ ಾI' ಅಪeತ ಪ'ದ ಬೆf ನಮ` ಸಂಬಂ:ಕರ ಕೂ,ಸರ ನಂ "ೆಎ-48/ಎ!-6829 ೇದFರ ^ೕbೆ ಪ,ಕರಣ ಾಖbಾYದುF ಇರುತE ೆ. ಾನು ನಮ` ಕೂ,ಸರ Sಡುಗgೆ ಾ"ೊಳhiವ ಕುUತು ಬಂ:ರುBೆEೕೆ ಅಂBಾ ೇ> ಾಗ ಾನು ಾನ ಎಐ ಾೇಬರು ಾನ ' ಐ ಾೇಬರ -Pಂj ದ% ಇದುFದUಂದ ?ೕವk ಸlಲm ಕು>ತು"ೊ>i ಅಂBಾ ೇ> ಾಗ D ವ5Eಯು ಕು>ತು"ೊಳi ೆ ಾೇ ತ?Tಾ ಸಾಯಕರ ರೂಮ ಹ=Eರ ೋY ನನJ ಾ ನನೆ S ಅಂBಾ ಏರು ಧp?ಯ% ಾತಾಡ"ೆq ಹ=E ಾಗ 1ಾI ಸಪmಳ "ೇ> ^ೕಲqಂಡ ಅa"ಾU ಾಗೂ 'ಬWಂ:ಯವರು ಬಂದು ಏ"ೆ 1ಾI ಾEೕU ಸlಲm ತgೆIU ^ಡ! ರವರು ಬರುBಾEKೆ ಅಂBಾ ೇ>ದರೂ ಕೂgಾ ನೊJಂ:ೆ ಏರು ಧp?ಯ% ಾತಾಡುdಾಗ ತ?Tಾ ಸಾಯಕKಾದ ಎಎಐ S ಎ SKಾ ಾರ ಾಗೂ ' ' 775 ರವರು ಸlಲm ತgೆIU ಬರುವ ಸಮಯ ಆY ೆ. )ಾ"ೇ 1ಾI ಾಡು=E:FU "ೆಲಸ"ೆq )ಾ"ೆ ಅಡತgೆ ಾಡು=E:FU ?ಮ` ಾ gೆrವರ ಎ5sgೆಂ\ ಾ ಓ ೋYರುವನು ಅವನು )ಾರು ಅಂBಾ ೊ=Eಲ% ಅವ?ೆ ಾಗೂ ಾೕಕUೆ ಕKೆI'U ಅಂBಾ ಅಂ ಾಗ ಅವನು ಾ )ಾರನುJ ಕKೆಸುವk:ಲ% ಾ )ಾರ ಅನುJದ ?ಮೆ ೊBೈ=bೊ%ೕ ನನJ ಬೆf ಾವಳY ೕಸರನJ "ೇ> ೋ )ಾರು ಅೊJೕದು ೊBಾEಗBೈ= ನಮ` ಾ ನಮೆ S ಅಂBಾ ಪkನಃ ಏರು ಧp?ಯ% ಾತಾ ಾನು ?ವ+Dಸು=Eರುವ ಸರ"ಾU ಕತ+ವ"ೆq ಅgೆತgೆ ಾದುF ಇರುತE ೆ. ಅಷ8ರ% .ಎ.ಐ ^ಡ! ರವರು ಬಂ:ದುF ಅವUೆ ಘಟೆಯ ಷಯ =>' ಅವKೊಂ:ೆ vಾU'"ೊಂಡು ಈಗ ತಮ` ಕgೆೆ ಬಂದು ದೂರು ?ೕದುF ಸದUಯವನ ^ೕbೆ ಸೂಕE "ಾನೂನು ಕ,ಮ "ೈೊಳiಲು ನನJ 9)ಾ+: ಇರುತE ೆ. vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹ ¸À»/- - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4218 CRL.P No. 100090 of 2024 («zÁå JªÀiï PÉgÀÆgÀ qÀ§ÆèöåJZï¹ 1413) ಜಮಖಂ ಾ,-ೕಣ ೕಸ ಾೆ.” The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner has raised his voice and hurled abuses against the 2nd respondent complainant. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioner. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column no.17 reads as follows: “17. "ೇ'ನ "ೇ'ನ "ೇ'ನ "ೇ'ನ ಸಂyಪE ಸಂyಪE ಸಂyಪE ಸಂyಪE ಾKಾಂಶ ಾKಾಂಶ ಾKಾಂಶ ಾKಾಂಶ ಸ?Ja "ೋlð ¸ÀܼÀ 'ೕ^ಯ, ಜಮಖಂ ಶಹರ ೕಸ ಾೆ ºÀ:F zೈ5, ಜಮಖಂ ಾ,-ೕಣ ೕಸ ಾೆಯ ತ?Tಾ ಸಾಯಕರ "ೋೆಯ% :ಾಂಕ 21- 02-2023 ರಂದು 13.00 ಗಂHೆೆ ೋ{ಾKೋಪಣ ಪತ, "ಾಲಂ ನಂ: 12 ರ%, ನಮೂದ ಾದ ಆKೋ ತನು ಾವಳY ಘಟಕದ ಗೃಹ ರ[ಕ ದಳದ ಯು?\ ಆ9ಸರ ಇದುF, ಜಮಖಂ ಾ,-ೕಣ ೕಸ ಾೆ dಾ Eಯ% ಸಂಭ'ದ ರ ೆE ಅಪeತದ% }ಾY)ಾದ ತನJ ಸಂಬಂaಕರ ಕೂ,ಜರ dಾಹನ ನಂ: KA-48/M-6829 ೇದFರ Sಡುಗgೆ ಸಲುdಾY ಜಮಖಂ ಾ,-ೕಣ ೕಸ ಾೆೆ ಬಂದು ಎ.ಎ&.ಓ ಕತ+ವದ ^ೕದF 9)ಾ+:ಯವUೆ ?ೕವk ನಮ` ಸಂಬಂaಕರ PÀÆæಜರ dಾಹನವನುJ ಈಗbೆ Sಡುಗgೆ ಾಡ1ೇಕು ಅಂBಾ ಅನುJ=Eರುdಾಗ 9)ಾ+: ಾಗೂ ಾy ಾರ ನಂ: 4, 5 ೇದವರು .ಎ.ಐ ^ಡಂ ರವರು ^ೕbಾa"ಾUಗಳ -Pಂಗದ% BೊಡYದುF ಸlಲm ೊತುE "ಾIU ಅಂBಾ ಅಂ:ದF"ೆq ಆKೋ ತನು ಾನು )ಾರು ಅನುJವದು ?ಮೆ ೊ=Eಲ%, ಾವಳY ೕಸ ಾೆ ೕಸರನುJ "ೇ> ೋ, ಾನು )ಾರು ಅನುJವದು ೊBಾEಗBೈ= ನಮ` ಾ ಈಗbೆ S, ಅಂBಾ ಏರು ಧp?ಯ% ಾತಾ 1ೆದU"ೆ ಾ5 9)ಾ+: ಾಗೂ ಾy ಾರ ನಂ: 4, 5 ರವರು ?ವ+Dಸು=EದF ಸ"ಾ+U ಕತ+ವ"ೆq ಅಡತgೆ ಾದ ಅಪKಾಧ.” - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4218 CRL.P No. 100090 of 2024 The issue is whether the petitioner should be tried for the offence under Section 353 of the IPC. Section 353 of the IPC reads as follows: “353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” Section 353 mandates that a public servant should be stopped from performing duties by usage of criminal force. There is no allegation in the case at hand that the petitioner indulged in assault of a public servant or used criminal force which came in the way of the public servant performing her duties. 9. The summary of the findings of the charge sheet, as also, the statement of all the witnesses are unequivocal that the only allegation against the petitioner is speaking to the 2nd respondent/complainant by raising his voice. This would, in the considered view of this Court, not meet the ingredients that are necessary for an offence to become punishable under Section - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4218 CRL.P No. 100090 of 2024 353 of the IPC. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter, as the Apex Court in the case of K DHANANJAY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (CABINET SECRETARY) in SLP (CRL.) No.5905 of 2022 while considering an identical allegation has held as follows: “…. …. …. We have now perused the copy of the complaint which was given by Respondent No. 5 – Ms. A. Thomeena, Deputy Registrar to the Inspector of Police, Ulsoor Police Station, Bangalore. The same reads as under : - “Sir, Today at 3.05 PM, we had one incident in our office. One Shri Dhananjay who had been a party to the proceedings before us had filed a complaint before the Chief Information Commission seeking certain documents. The CIC vide order No.CIC/CAD/MT/A/2018/611756/SD dated 01.07.2019 and asked us to give some documents. We had kept every document ready and asked him to come and get it and inspect the document which he wanted. But apparently he wanted some other documents also which we felt had nothing to do with the order of the CIC. Therefore, being an official document, we had refused. Thereupon he started shouting and threatening us. At that time Smt. Rajashri, CPIO, Smt. Rekhashree, who is my PS, and Smt. Geetha who is an MTS were in the room. He threatening and shouted at them and disrupted the work of the office. Hearing the shouts and cries, people around gathered and I had immediately informed the police. Kindly take necessary action.” It is on the basis of the above complaint that an FIR has been lodged against the appellant. However, the only allegation against the appellant in the said complaint is that he was shouting and threatening the staff. This itself will not amount to any assault. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4218 CRL.P No. 100090 of 2024 Assault is defined under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code as under :- “353 Assault - Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.” We have reproduced the entire complaint hereinabove. On perusing the same, we find that none of the ingredients, as mentioned in Section 353 IPC, is reflected in the complaint letter. In other words, no offence under Section 353 IPC is made out in this case. The High Court, to our mind, has committed a mistake in not interfering in this case. This is a case which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, we allow this appeal and quash the entire proceedings initiated against the appellant.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that unless there is an allegation of assault or usage of criminal force against the accused, the accused cannot be tried for an offence under Section 353 of the IPC. It is an admitted fact that there is no allegation of the kind in the case at hand. What remains is Section 506 of the IPC. Even Section 506 of the IPC has its ingredients in Section 503 of the IPC, both of which read as follows: “503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4218 CRL.P No. 100090 of 2024 any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section. Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation. … … … 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.— Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.— and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” None of the ingredients as obtaining in Section 503 of the IPC are even found. Therefore, the offence under Section 506 of the IPC is also not met. In that light permitting further trial - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4218 CRL.P No. 100090 of 2024 against the petitioner would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1190 of 2023 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi stands quashed qua the petitioner. SD/- ____________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA BKP List No.: 39 Sl No.: 5