- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32585 WP No. 26786 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 26786 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. DAYANAND M AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O. MANJUNATH, R/AT BYCHAPURA VILLAGE, THAGGIKUPPE POST, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 562 120. 2. MANJUNATH. B.S . AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O. SUBBAIAH, R/A BYCHAPURA VILLAGE, THAGGIKUPPE POST, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 562 120. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAYUR D. BHANU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAMANAGARA WOMENS POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32585 WP No. 26786 of 2024 BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. UMADEVI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, W/O. JAYARAM, R/AT KOTE RAMESHWARA BADAVANE, MAGADI TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 562 120. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 528 OF THE BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 5334/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MAGADI REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2, are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.5334 of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32585 WP No. 26786 of 2024 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506 read with 34 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri. Mayur D. Bhanu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The second respondent is the complainant. The accused No.1 and the complainant are said to have been in a relationship for about 18 months. After the relationship broke, a crime is registered for the offence of repeated rape punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and also the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The police conduct investigation and drop the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC but retain the offences under Sections 341 and 506 of the IPC and file a charge sheet for the said offences arraigning the petitioners as accused Nos.1 and 2. Upon filing of the charge sheet, the concerned Court takes cognizance of the offences alleged therein and registers a case in C.C.No.5336 of 2024, against - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32585 WP No. 26786 of 2024 the petitioners. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioners are before this Court in the subject petition. 4. Sri. Mayur D. Bhanu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC being dropped, none of the other offences would hold any water as the necessary ingredients for an offence under Section 341 of the IPC are not met even to its remotest sense in the case at hand. Therefore, the learned counsel would seek obliteration of the proceedings. 5. The second respondent/complainant though served long ago remains unrepresented, even today. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the charge sheet is filed. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full-blown trial and this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and interfere with these proceedings. 7. The afore-narrated facts has now been reduced to a narrow compass with the offence punishable under Section - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32585 WP No. 26786 of 2024 376(2)(n) of the IPC being dropped, with the filing of the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows: "17.
ೇನ ಸಂಪ , ಾ ಾಂಶ ಕಲಂ 341, 506 gÉ/« 34 ಐ ಾನ ಘನ ಾಾಲಯದ ಾ ೆ ೇದ ಾಮನಗರ !ೆ" ಾಗ# $ೌ& 'ೈತನ ಡಾೋ,- ೆಂಟ/ ನ0"
ೆಲಸ ಾಡುವ ಈ 4ೋ5ಾ ೋಪ6ಾ ಪ7, ಕಲಂ ನಂ 12 ರ0" ಕಂಡ ಆ ೋ 1 ಮತು ಾ-01 ರವರು ಈೆ9 ಒಂದು ವಷ<=ಂದ ಪರಸ>ರ ?ೕ@ಸು@ ದುA, ಾ-01 ರವರು ತನೆ ಈ Bಂ4ೆ ಮದುೆಾCರುವ D'ಾರವನುE ಎ1 ಆ ೋೆ @Gಸ4ೆ ಇದುA, ಈ D'ಾರ ಎ1- ಆ ೋ ೊIಾ C ಾ 1 ರವರನುE ?ೕ@ ಾಡ4ೆ ಅಂತರ
ಾಯುA
ೊಂಡು ಾ-1 ರವರ KLೈM ನಂಬ/ ಅನುE Lಾ"- 0O, ೆ PಾQದ ಸಮಯದ0" ಾ -01 ರವರು ಎ1 ಆ ೋಯನುE
ೇಳಲು Pೋದ ಸಮಯದ0" ಎ1 ಆ ೋ ಾ-1 ರವೆ ಮದುೆಾCರುವ D'ಾರವನುE ಮ ೆ ಾS ?ೕ@ಸುವ D'ಾರವನುE Pಾಗೂ ಾ- 01 ರವರನುE ?ೕ@ ಾಡದಂIೆ @G4ಾಗ ಾ-1 ರವರು ಎ1 ಆ ೋಯೆEೕ ಮದುೆಾಗುವT4ಾC ಮದುೆಾಗ=ದA ೆ ಾಯುವT4ಾC @G4ಾಗ ಎ1 ಆ ೋ ಾ-1 ರವೆ ನ&ನ ತಂ$ೆ ತಕ ಾೆ ಬರLೇಡ ಬಂದ ೆ Uನೆ ಒಂದು ಗ@
ಾVಸುIೆ ೆಂದು Lೆದ
ೆ PಾQದುA ಈ D'ಾರವನುE ಎ1 ಆ ೋ ಎ2 ಆ ೋೆ @G4ಾಗ =ಾಂಕ:10/04/2024 ರಂದು ಾಗ# $ೌ& ಪTರಸWೆ ರೆ ಯ ಮುಂ4ೆ ಡೂX !ೈY ಸಕ<M ನ0"ರುವ Z?ೕ ಾ[ರಂಗ ೈಬ/ \ೋ& ಮುಂWಾಗದ ರೆ ಯ0" 'ೈತನ ಡ]ೕೋ,- ೆಂಟ/ ಬG ಎ2 ಆ ೋ ಾ- 1 ರವರನುE ಅಡ^ಗ7, ಎ1 ಆ ೋಯ ಸಹಾಸ
ೆ` ಬರLಾರ4ೆಂದು Lೆದ
ೆ PಾQ Iೊಂದ ೆ Uೕ#ರುವTದು ಾ4ಾರರ PೇG
ೆ[ಂದಲೂ ಮತು ತUaೆ[ಂದಲೂ ಎ1 ಆ ೋಗಳ bೕ!ೆ ಆ ೋಪವT ದೃಢಪ7,ರುIೆ . ಆದAಂದ bೕಲ`ಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ೕತ ಆ ೋಗಳ bೕ!ೆ Pೊಸಲ>ಟ, 4ೋ5ಾ ೋಪ6ಾ ಪ7,. Uೇದೆ; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32585 WP No. 26786 of 2024 ( =ಾಂಕ;-05/08/2024 ರಂದು ಪ?ಕರಣದ ಾ<ದು4ಾರರು fಾ6ೆೆ Pಾಜ ಾC ತನE ಮುಂದುವ ೆದ PೇG
ೆ Uೕ#ದರ bೕ ೆೆ ಾನ ಾಾಲಯ
ೆ` Pೆಚುiವ ಕಲಂ 376(2)(ಎ&), 312 ಐ ಕಲಂಗಳನುE ಅಳವ#
ೊಂಡು ತUaೆಯನುE ಮುಂದುವ ೆಸಲು ಾನD ಪತ?ವನುE ಸ0"
ೊಂಡು ತUaೆ ಮುಂದುವ ೆದುA, ತUaಾ ಸಮಯದ0" ಾjಾkಾರಗಳ
ೊರIೆ ಮತು 4ಾಖ!ಾ@ಗಳ
ೊರIೆ[ಂದ ಕಲಂ 376(2)(ಎ&), 312, 417 ಐ ಕಲಂಗಳನುE 4ೋ5ಾ ೋಪಣ ಪ7,[ಂದ
ೈm7,ರುತ 4ೆ, ಸದ ಪ?ಕರಣದ0" ಕೃತ ನnೆದ ಸoಳದ 4ಾಖ!ಾ@ಗಳನುE ಾಗ# ಪTರಸWೆ ಮತು ಕ'ಾi ನ
ಾpೆಯನುE !ೋ
ೋಪ]ೕC ಇ!ಾaೆ ಾಗ# $ೌ& ರವಂದ ಪnೆಯLೇ
ಾCದುA, ಪnೆದ ನಂತರ ಕಲಂ 193(9) mಎ&ಎOಎO ೕIಾ Pೆಚುiವ 4ಾಖ!ಾ@ಗಳನುE ಾನ ಾಾಲಯ
ೆ` ಸ0"
ೊಳq!ಾಗುವTದು)." A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would not indicate the ingredients of the offences being met for permitting further trial to continue. 8. 8. The offence alleged is the one punishable under Section 341 of the IPC, which is wrongful restraint. For an offence under wrongful restraint, the ingredients as obtaining under Section 339 of the IPC are necessarily to be present, which would be that the accused must have wrongfully restrained the victim by use of criminal force and not permit the victim to move around in any direction. That is not the allegation in the case at hand nor is it the finding in the summary of the charge sheet quoted supra. Therefore, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32585 WP No. 26786 of 2024 offence under Section 341 is loosely laid against the petitioners. Permitting further proceedings for the said offence would undoubtedly become an abuse of the process of the law. 9. What remains is the offence under Section 506 of the IPC. For an allegation to become an offence under Section 506 of the IPC, the ingredients as obtaining under Section 503 of the IPC are necessarily to be present. Interpretation of Section 503 of the IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of MOHD. WAJID v. STATE OF U.P.1, has delineated as to what would become the ingredients of the offences under Sections 503, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The Apex Court observes as follows: “…. …. …. Sections 503, 504 and 506 IPC 25. Chapter XXII IPC relates to criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance. Section 503 reads thus: “503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of 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 1 (2023) 20 SCC 219 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32585 WP No. 26786 of 2024 do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, 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.” 26. Section 504 reads thus: “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.” 27. Section 506 reads thus: “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.” 28. An offence under Section 503 has the following essentials: (1) Threatening a person with any injury; (i) to his person, reputation or property; or - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32585 WP No. 26786 of 2024 (ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested. (2) The threat must be with intent; (i) to cause alarm to that person; or (ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or (iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat. 29. Section 504 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. 30. 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. 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32585 WP No. 26786 of 2024 particular conduct or temperament of the complainant. 31. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504 IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant. In King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai [King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78] , a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that: “To constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the other party to lose his temper and say or do something violent. Public peace can be broken by angry words as well as deeds.” (emphasis supplied) 32. A bare perusal of Section 506 IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. 33. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not under Section 504 IPC. The allegations with respect to the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC can also be looked at from a different perspective. In the FIR, all that the first informant has stated is that abusive language was - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32585 WP No. 26786 of 2024 used by the accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the FIR. 34. One of the essential elements, as discussed above, constituting an offence under Section 504 IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court observes that to constitute an offence under Section 506 of the IPC, there must be a threat amounting to criminal intimidation under Section 503 IPC, made with the intention of causing alarm to the complainant or compelling the complainant to do or omit an act which he is legally entitled or bound to do. Mere abusive language or a mere utterance of a threat, sans these essential ingredients, would not constitute the said offence. 10. In the light of none of the ingredients being present qua the offences in this case, permitting further trial would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32585 WP No. 26786 of 2024 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.5334 of 2024 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at Magadi for the offences punishable under Section 341 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC, qua the petitioners, stand quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44