- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8601 CRL.P No. 102610 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102610 OF 2024 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. HAMUMESH RATOD S/O. PEERAPPA RATOD, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O. SHIVANA TANDA, INDARAGI POST, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583228. 2. PEERAPPA RATOD S/O. PAKEERAPPA RATOD, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. SHIVANA TANDA, INDARAGI POST, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583228. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AMIT ANANDHALLI, ADV. FOR SRI. S. G. KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION, Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8601 CRL.P No. 102610 of 2024 TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL, REP. BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH BUILDING, DHARWAD. 2. DODDA AMBAVVA W/O. HANUMAPPA LAMANI, AGED: MAJOR, R/O. SHIVANA TANDA, INDARAGI POST, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583228. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.209/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KOPPAL FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324, 354, 355, 504, 506 R/W. 149 OF IPC, REGISTERED BY THE MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.148/2019 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.14 AND 17 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8601 CRL.P No. 102610 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard Shri Amit Anandhalli and Shri S.G.Kadadakatti, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Kirtilatha Patil., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1- State. 2. The petitioners – accused Nos.14 and 17 have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.209/2020, pending on the file of learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal in connection with Munirabad Police Station Crime No.148/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 355, 504, 506, 447 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under: On 14.07.2019 at about 3:30 p.m, when the first informant was in her land bearing Sy.No.74, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8601 CRL.P No. 102610 of 2024 petitioners and others trespassed to the land, took quarrel with her, assaulted the first informant with hands and legs, outraged her modesty, intentionally insulted her and made criminal intimidation to eliminate her. Hence, the first informant lodged a complaint, which led to the registration of FIR and initiation of investigation. 4. On the basis of the complaint, respondent No.1- Police registered a case in Crime No.148/2019 for the aforesaid offences. The Investigating Officer conducted investigation and filed the charge-sheet. The petitioners are accused Nos.14 and 17 respectively. Taking exception to the same, the petitioners have filed this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegations made against the petitioners are an afterthought, so as to falsely implicate them; there is a civil litigation between the parties, and the dispute is purely civil in nature; however, it has been given a criminal texture. Hence, he prayed to allow the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8601 CRL.P No. 102610 of 2024 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader contended that there is prima-facie material against the petitioners to attract Section 504 of IPC. The petitioners intentionally insulted the complainant to provoke her breach of peace and also made criminal intimidation to eliminate her and they trespassed the land of the de facto complainant. Now the investigation is completed and trial Court has taken cognizance. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Perused the material available on record. 8. On perusal of the entire charge-sheet material, it appears that the only allegation against the petitioners- accused Nos.14 and 17 is that they intentionally insulted the complainant with the intent to provoke a breach of peace. However, neither the witness statements nor the contents of the complaint specifically identify which of the accused made the alleged insults, nor do they provide the exact words used by the de facto complainant. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8601 CRL.P No. 102610 of 2024 9. Thus, mere act of insulting a person would not satisfy the ingredients of Section 504 of IPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Fiona Shrikhande vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in AIR (2014) SC 2013 at Paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 has held as under: "13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients, viz., (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC. 14. We may also indicate that it is not the law that the actual words or language should figure in the complaint. One has to read the complaint as a whole and, by doing so, if the Magistrate comes to a conclusion, prima facie, that there has been an intentional insult so as to provoke any person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, that is sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of Section 504 IPC. It is not the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8601 CRL.P No. 102610 of 2024 law that a complainant should verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of provoking the other person to commit any other offence. The background facts, circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which they are used, the person or persons to whom they are addressed, the time, the conduct of the person who has indulged in such actions are all relevant factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504 IPC." 10. In the instant case, the litigation between the parties is purely civil in nature, however, the de facto complainant has given it a criminal texture. The ingredient of Section 504 of IPC is not made out insofar as petitioners are concerned. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law and the petition is deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i) The criminal petition is allowed. ii) The impugned entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.209/2020, pending on the file of learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal in connection with Munirabad Police Station Crime No.148/2019 registered for the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8601 CRL.P No. 102610 of 2024 offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 355, 447, 504, 506, read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, insofar as petitioners-accused Nos.14 and 17 are concerned, are hereby quashed. iii) In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AM/- CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38