- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35018 CRL.P No. 268 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 268 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. RAIHANAPARVEEN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D/O. ISMAIL HAJI W/O. SHEIKH KHASIM 2. MR. SHEIKH KHASIM AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O ISMAIL 3. FAROOQ AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O. SHEIKH KHASIM 4. ABDULLAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O SHEIKH KHASIM ALL ARE R/AT: S.K.L. MANZIL, UPPALA VILLAGE AND POST MANHEJSHWARA TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671322 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. TALHA ISMAIL BENGRE, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35018 CRL.P No. 268 of 2024 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA KAUP POLICE STATION REPTD. BY SSP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 560 001. 2. FIRDOS BANU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS D/O ISMAIL AMEER KHAN, W/O MOHAMMED ADIL, R/AT NO.1-174-A, PANDE, UDYAVARE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 574118 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. DEEPTHI ALVA, HCGTP FOR R1; R-2 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET REGISTERED PERTAINING TO COMPLAINT AND FIR BEARING CR.NO.158/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC AND C.C.NO.2024/2019, OF KAPU P.S. WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35018 CRL.P No. 268 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioners - accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 are before the Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.2024/2019 registered for offences punishable under Section 420, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri. Talha Ismail Bengre, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Deepthi Alva, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. 3. It is the case of the complainant that somewhere in the year 2017, she lent an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- as a loan and after about a year for the said lending, the petitioners are said to have issued certain cheques. The cheques having been dishonoured, separate proceeding is taken up for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). A month before taking steps to prosecute these petitioners for an offence under Section 138 of the Act, the petitioners file the subject private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The matter was referred for investigation and a crime in Crime No.158/2018 comes to be registered. The police conduct investigation and file a charge - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35018 CRL.P No. 268 of 2024 sheet. Filing of the charge sheet has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have set the criminal law into motion for the purpose of recovery of money, which cannot be permitted. He further submits that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act are also instituted by the very petitioners one month after, setting the criminal law into motion for the aforesaid offences. He would seek the obliteration of the entire proceedings. 5. The complainant though served long ago remains unrepresented even today. Therefore, the learned HCGP is heard in the matter. 6. Learned HCGP, Smt. Deepthi Alva appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that the police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. Therefore, the petitioners must be permitted to face trial and come out clean in a full blown trial, as the offences are clearly made out in the case at hand. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35018 CRL.P No. 268 of 2024 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass. A transaction between the petitioners and the complainant is in the year 2017, two proceedings have sprung out of the said action; one is for the dishonour of the cheque, said to have been issued by the petitioners. The complaint in the case at hand comes to be registered in Crime No.158 of 2018 on a complaint, which reads as follows: "Later she approached the accused and requested them to repay the aforesaid sum of Rs.12,00,000/- over a phone. At that time the accused altogether told the complainant that they will not pay the dues and said that the complainant is at liberty to do whatever she wants to do. They also threatened the complainant that they will fly to foreign very soon and no one can do anything to her. Further they threatened that if at all she files any complaint against them then they will cut her limbs and uttered abusive words against her. This incident was took place on 27-08-2018 at about 12 hrs near N.H. 66 Udyavara, Udupi while the accused came there. Even it is on 20-08-2018 the accused no.1, 2 and 4 came to her residential aplce of aforesaid address and given life threat and used abusive aords to her. As a result of above deceitful, unlawful and criminal act of the accused the complainant suffered huge loss of more than Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only). The accused had fraudently and dishonestly induced the Complainant to deliver a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only) which she would not have done, delivered if he were not so deceived and the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35018 CRL.P No. 268 of 2024 said criminal act caused him huge loss to the extent of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only). The aforesaid acts of the accused are highly criminal and punishable under law. The accused has deliberately issued cheque knowing fully well that same would not be honored when presented. The accused had issued said cheque with an intention to cheat and to cause damage to the complainant, fraudently and dishonestly induced her to lend a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only) and caused her damage of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only). The above act of the accused issuing cheques clearly reveals that the intended to deceive the complainant, and has no intention to pay the dues owed (cheque amount) to hte complainant. The accused also has issued said cheques with common dishonest intention of cheating the complainant and thereby accused had also committed offence under section 420, 504, 506 R/w 34 of I.P.C. by cheating the complainant. The purpose of borrowing the amount and issuing aforesaid cheque in favour of complainant was to deceive the complainant hence this complaint. The complainant submits that 27-08-2018 she approached the Kaup P.S. and lodged a petition against the accused persons. But they have not ready to take any action against the accused. Hence this complaint. Therefore, it is prayed that this court may be pleased to refer the matter to S.H.O. Kaup P.S. to investigate the matter and after receiving the report he may be punished in accordance with Law. It is also prayed that on conviction of the accused a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only) may be ordered to be paid to the Complainant under the provisions of Sec.357 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice." 9. The complaint is referred for investigation, which becomes a crime in Crime No.158/2018 for offences - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35018 CRL.P No. 268 of 2024 punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17, reads as follows: "17. PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÁgÁA±À: ZÁ.¸Á 1£Éà AiÀĪÀgÀ vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£É PÉÃgÀ¼À gÁdåzÀ PÁ¸ÀgÀUÉÆÃqÀÄ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ªÀÄAZÉñÀégÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ GZÀѼÀ UÁæªÀÄ DVzÀÄÝ, ZÁ.¸Á.1£ÉÃAiÀĪÀgÀÄ DUÁUÀ vÀ£Àß vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ, ZÁ.¸Á.1£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀ vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£É ºÀwÛgÀzÀ°è DgÉÆæ 1, 2, 3, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ DgÉÆæ 1£ÉÃAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¯ÁåAqï ¯ÉAPïì PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, 2017£Éà E¸À«AiÀįÉè ªÁå¥ÁgÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ºÀtPÁ¹£À CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EzÁÝUÀ DgÉÆæ 1,2,3,4, gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃj 3 wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹ ZÁ.¸Á.1£ÉÃAiÀĪÀjAzÀ 2,00,000/- gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä PÉüÀzÀAvÉ DgÉÆæ 1£ÉÃAiÀĪÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀvÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÁzÀ PÁgÀt ZÁ.¸Á.1£ÉÃAiÀĪÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ°èzÀÝ 30 ¥ÀªÀ£ï §AUÁgÀ D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CqÀ«lÄÖ ºÁUÀÄ CªÀgÀ¯ÉèzÀÝ £ÀUÀzÀÄ gÀÆ.6,00,000/-£ÀÄß MlÄÖ gÀÆ.12,00,000/- ªÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæ 1£ÉÃAiÀĪÀjUÉ DgÉÆæ 2,3,4, gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 03 wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ ZÁ.¸Á.£ÉÃAiÀĪÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß ºÀtzÀ §UÉÎ DgÉÆæ 1£ÉÃAiÀĪÀgÀ°è PÉýzÁUÀ DgÉÆæ 1£ÉÃAiÀĪÀgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ 6,00,000/-, 2,00,000/- ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4,00,000/- gÀAvÉ 3 ZÉPïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ZÁ.¸Á.1£Éà AiÀĪÀjUÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ZÁ.¸Á.1£ÉÃAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ZÉPïUÀ¼À §UÉÎ «ZÁj¸ÀĪÀgÀ G¥Àà¼ÀzÀ «dAiÀiÁ ¨ÁåAPï ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝUÀ ZÉPï ¤ÃrzÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À CPËAmï£À°è £ÀUÀzÀÄ E®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÁV w½zÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ ºÀtzÀ §UÉÎ DgÉÆæ-1 £ÉÃAiÀĪÀgÀÄ PÉýzÀ°è CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÄÝ ZÁ.¸Á.1£ÉÃAiÀĪÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæ 1£ÉÃAiÀĪÀgÀ°è vÀªÀÄä ºÀtzÀ §UÉÎ .... PÉýzÀPÉÌ DgÉÆæ 1,2,3,4 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃj ¢:27.08.2018 gÀAzÀÄ 12.00 UÀAmÉUÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå 2£Éà ¦.¹.eÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ eÉ.JA.J¥sï.¹. £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ GqÀĦ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À PÁ¥ÀÄ oÁuÉ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ ZÁ.¸Á.1£ÉÃAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀå EzÀÝ GzÁåºÀgÀzÀ ¦üAiÉÆøï gÀªÀgÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£É CAUÀ¼ÀPÉÌ §AzÀÄ ¨ÉêÀ¹ð, gÀAqÉ JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ fêÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀ®A 504, 506 eÉÆvÉUÉ 34 L.¦.¹. gÀAvÉ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ." (sic) 10. The offences that are alleged in the charge sheet is not for offence punishable under Section 420 of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35018 CRL.P No. 268 of 2024 the IPC, but only Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. The summary of the charge sheet would not indicate even a titter of ingredient of the offence under Section 504 or 506 of the IPC. Interpretation of Section 504 or 506 of the IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. 11. The Apex Court in the case of MOHD. WAJID v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS1, has held 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 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 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35018 CRL.P No. 268 of 2024 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 (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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35018 CRL.P No. 268 of 2024 (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. 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 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 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35018 CRL.P No. 268 of 2024 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. ChunnibhaiDayabhai, (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 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 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35018 CRL.P No. 268 of 2024 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) 12. A perusal at the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet would not indicate even an iota of ingredient of offence under Section 503 of the IPC for it to become offence under Section 504 or 506 of the IPC. 13. Permitting further proceedings against these petitioners in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of MOHD. WAJID supra and the summary of the charge sheet would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings pending in C.C.No.2024/2019 arising out of Crime No.158/2018 pending before the II - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35018 CRL.P No. 268 of 2024 Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, stands quashed qua the petitioners. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28