- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2904 CRL.P No. 101489 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101489 OF 2021 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUMA @ SUMANGALA W/O DR. KOMAL BHAVANE, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB, R/O: NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO.23, ANNAPURNA WADI, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590 010. 2. SMT. KAMALA DAVID KELAGINAMANI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: B.C. NO.17, KILLA, FORT, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590 016. 3. KUMARI. SUREKHA D/O DAVID KELAGINAMANI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: B.C. NO.17, KILLA, FORT, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590 016. 4. SMT. SELVIYAROJA S. KELAGINAMANI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE KLE HOSPITAL, BELAGAVI, R/O: B.C. NO.17, KILLA, FORT, BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590 016. 5. SHRI. KISHORE PRAKASH HABBANNAVAR, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O: C/O. KAMALA D. KELAGINAMANI, Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.19 13:15:39 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2904 CRL.P No. 101489 of 2021 B.C.NO.17, FORT (KILLA), BELAGAVI, PIN CODE-590 016. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE APMC POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ADDL, S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 011. 2. SHRIKANT RAMCHANDRA BHAVANE, SINCE DECEASED BY LRS, SMT. REBECCA DINESH SINGH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O: W/O. GP/CPT. D.K. SINGH, OMQ 84/B, SUBROTO PARK, AIR FORCE STATION, NEW DELHI-110 010. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PRASHANT F. GOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.518/2018 ARISING OUT OF P.C.NO.252/2017, WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV JMFC COURT, BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 323, 341, 504, 506, 355 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC, BE KINDLY QUASHED AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN WHO ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 THEREIN, BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2904 CRL.P No. 101489 of 2021 ORAL ORDER 1. The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC, stating that accused No.1 is the wife of his son and that there had been a marital conflict. He further alleged that, since 2014, the accused had been picking quarrels, abusing, and threatening the 2nd respondent and his family members. The 2nd respondent also alleged that on November 13, 2017, between approximately 7:30 PM and 7:45 PM, accused No.1, along with all the accused, approached the complainant’s home and began abusing the complainant and his elder son in filthy language. Accused Nos.1 and 5 caught hold of the complainant and slapped him on the face; accused No.1 removed the footwear and assaulted him on the chest. Accused Nos.2, 3, and 4 dragged and assaulted the complainant with their hands. A large number of people gathered during the incident, which was witnessed by two persons. The learned Magistrate then referred the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. 2. After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504, and 506, read with Section 34 of the IPC. 3. The registration of the FIR is impugned in this petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations in the private complaint arise from a marital conflict between accused No.1 and the complainant’s son, albeit with a criminal texture, and that, except for omnibus and general allegations, there is no specific overt act. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2904 CRL.P No. 101489 of 2021 5. In response, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that specific overt acts are alleged against accused No.1 for assaulting the complainant, as well as against the other accused, who are alleged to have assaulted the complainant with their hands and dragged him. He argued that the veracity of the allegations warrants investigation and that, at this stage, the registration of the FIR does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, he sought the dismissal of the petition. 6. The arguments of the learned counsel for both parties have been duly considered. 7. Although the complainant has narrated several incidents since 2014—with the latest occurring on November 13, 2017—no prior complaint was filed against the petitioner/accused until this last incident. The complainant alleges that he was assaulted by accused No.1 with a chappal (slipper), while accused Nos.2, 3, and 4 assaulted him with their hands. However, a perusal of the complaint indicates that he did not seek treatment for any injuries that would constitute an offence under Sections 323 or 324 of the IPC. The allegations of abuse and threats are omnibus and general, and there is no specific overt act detailing how or in what manner each accused abused or threatened the complainant. It has also been brought to the attention of this Court that the complainant is deceased. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2904 CRL.P No. 101489 of 2021 8. Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalizes the use of insulting or abusive language with the specific intent to provoke a breach of the public peace. Similarly, Section 506 deals with criminal intimidation, which requires that the threat made is of such a nature that it instills fear of injury or harm. For an act to be punishable under these sections, it is not enough that abusive language is used; there must also be an element of intent and consequence. 9. In the present case, although the petitioners have employed abusive language, there is no evidence that this language resulted in any breach of public peace. The conduct of Respondent No.2 did not give rise to any disturbance or incitement to disorder that would meet the threshold required by Section 504. Moreover, for Section 506 to be applicable, the language used must have constituted a threat that created a reasonable apprehension of harm in the mind of the petitioners or others. Here, the evidence does not indicate that Respondent No.1 engaged in any conduct that instilled fear or amounted to criminal intimidation. 10. Therefore, the allegations in the complaint appear to arise from a marital conflict between accused No.1 and the complainant’s son, albeit with a criminal texture intended to exact vengeance. In such circumstances, the continuation of the investigation would be an abuse of the process of law. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2904 CRL.P No. 101489 of 2021 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.518/2018 pending on the file of the IV JMFC Court, Belagavi, are hereby quashed. Pending interlocutory applications shall not be considered. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 56