- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35976 CRL.P No. 8927 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8927 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MR. RAMESH G, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O GURUMURTHY, RESIDING AT 304, RAHEJA VILLAGE, 49/107, GANDHI NAGAR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, ADAYAR, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU - 600 020. 2. MRS. PADMA RAMESH, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O RAMESH, R/AT 304, RAHEJA VILLAGE, 49/107, GANDHI NAGAR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, ADAYAR, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU - 600 020. 3. MS. NITHYA RAMESH, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O RAMESH, R/AT 304, RAHEJA VILLA, 49/107, GANDHI NAGAR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, ADAYAR, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU - 600 020. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUNIL S RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.N DILLI RAJAN., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35976 CRL.P No. 8927 of 2024 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTHANURU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 077. REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. DEEPIKA RAMESH D/O RAMESH, AGED 35 YEARS, VILLA NO.17, SALAPURIA, SATTVA, NORTHLAND, CHIKKAGUBBI, DODDAGUBBI POST, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA - 560 077. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.S.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.341/2024 DATED 02.08.2024 REGISTERED BY THE KOTHANURU PS ARISING OUT OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 02.08.2024 LODGED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHO ARE ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 69, 89, 351(2), 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS), 2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XXIX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU CITY, VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35976 CRL.P No. 8927 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners - accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 - the father, mother and sister of accused No.1 stand before the court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.341/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 69, 89, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS. 2. Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Sunil S. Rao appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. S. Mahesh representing respondent No.2. 3. Facts adumbrated are as follows: Accused No.1 and the complainant get acquainted to each other and are said to have fallen in love. The relationship between the two was for 2 years from 2022 to 2024 to be precise from 15.06.2022 to January, 2024. The relationship between the two turning sore results in the complainant travelling to the jurisdictional police to register a crime. This becomes a crime in Crime No.341/2024 for the offences punishable as afore-quoted. The crime is registered on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35976 CRL.P No. 8927 of 2024 02.08.2024 for the aforesaid offences that have allegedly taken place from 16.06.2022 to 02.08.2024. The registration of the crime has driven these petitioners - parents and sister of accused No.1 to this Court in the subject petition. This Court had, by its interim order, protected the petitioners. Therefore, no investigation has taken place in the case at hand. 4. Learned counsel, Sri. Sunil Rao, appearing for the petitioners submits that even if the complaint is taken as true against these petitioners, it would not amount to an offence punishable under whatever law, that is either under the BNS or under the earlier regime, the IPC. The learned counsel submits that all that the complaint narrates qua these petitioners is that they have only indicated that the complainant belongs to some other caste and the equations cannot be brought together. Except this, there is nothing else in the complaint. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Sri. S. Mahesh would however refute the submission in contending that there is some allegation against these petitioners of intimidation and therefore, the investigation must be permitted to be continued. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35976 CRL.P No. 8927 of 2024 6. Learned HCGP would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. 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 at this juncture lie in a narrow compass. The dates and the link in the chain of the events are all a matter of record. They would not require any iteration. Since the entire issue is now sprung from registration of the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows: Date: 02-Aug-2024 From: Deepika Ramesh D/o Ramesh, Aged about 35 years, R/at # 17, Salarpuria Sattva NorthLand, Chikkagubbi Doddagubbi Post, Bangalore. Mob:9591906719. Email: deepika.aramesh@gmail.com To: The Inspector Kothanur Police Station, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35976 CRL.P No. 8927 of 2024 Bangalore-560077. Sub: Promise to marry and causing miscarriage without consent and acts amounting to adultery and cheating committed by Mr Nishanth. Respected Sir/Madam, With reference to the above I would like to bring the following facts for your kind consideration and immediate necessary action please. I have been residing in the above address for the last 6 months and prior to that I have been living in #24, #25, YashodhaNagar, Jakkur, Bangalore-64; this where I got into a relationship with Mr. Nishanth. I hold a MSc degee in Aerospace Engineering from University of Bath, UK, and am employed at AvioHelitronics InfoSystems Pvt. Ltd. for the last 10 years and currently holding the position of COO& Sr.VP. I wish to report the actions of Mr. Nishanth, who deceived me under the pretense of marriage. We were introduced as potential marriage partnerson 15/06/2022 by one of our common friendsMs. Krithika Shekar, and from then he has made several assurances that he was serious about a future with me. However, his behavior soon revealed a pattern of manipulation and dishonesty. Mr. Nishanth and I communicated frequently and met several times in Bangalore, Chennai, Mumbai, Pune, Mahabalapuram, Goa, Andaman & Nicobar and we have also gone on international trips to Srilanka & Maldives, during which he assured me of his exclusive interest in me and our future together. Despite his promises, he exhibited troubling behavior, such as controlling our meetings, making false claims about his health, cheating and sexting other girls while he promised to be exclusive and marry me, and last but not the least, avoiding meaningful discussions with our parents about our relationship. It is not out of context to state that Mr Nishanth first came to Bangalore on 7th Oct 2022 and later asked me to come to Chennai on 16th Oct 2022. Thereafter, we have traveled to Maldives on 28th Oct 2022, Mahabalipuram on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35976 CRL.P No. 8927 of 2024 15th Jan 2023 & Dec 2023, Goa on 1st May 2023, Andamans on 13th Aug 2023, Pune on 23rd Agu 2023 & 3rd Dec 2023, Sri Lanka on 30th Sep 2023, Mumbai on 6th 2023 & 21st Nov 2023 as mentioned above. On March 8, 2023, I discovered I was pregnant Mr. Nishanth pressured me to terminate the pregnancy, showing no empathy or support. His actions during this period were emotionally & physically abusive, culminating in coercing me into taking the termination pill. Due to several complications, I had to undergo surgery 2 weeks later, for which he showed no support 24 hrs, at all.It is not out of context to state that he would indeed also undue influence me into termination by manipulating the very context of getting married in the future. On Jan 9th, 2024, I found that I was pregnant again. Once more, Mr. Nishanth pressured me to terminate the pregnancy, demonstrating the same lack of empathy and support. His coercion and emotional abuse continued, reflecting a consistent pattern of manipulation. During this time when I refused to terminate, he manipulated me by assuring to marry me in October this year and have a baby after that. Due to repeated abortions, my health had deteriorated which resulted in me having to undergo a surgery (D&C) once again, to which I opposed strongly and that I would not consent until both the parents are informed about our relationship and the situation. He continued to manipulate me with his false promises and forced me to undergo the surgery. Throughout our relationship Mr. Nishanth's actions were deceitful and manipulative. He used the promise of marriage card to exploit me emotionally, physically and financially, with no intention of fulfilling his commitments. Furthermore, Mr. Nishanth's family, including his father, mother, and sister, were complicit in his deceit. Even after becoming aware of his fake promises and manipulative behavior, they did nothing to make things right for me. Their support and encouragement haveenabled Mr. Nishanth to continue his exploitation and abuse. They indeed went to an extent of threatening me to stop associating with their son as they are Brahmins and blocked me and my parents mobile numbers (9448235954, 7975825367) after initiating the very - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35976 CRL.P No. 8927 of 2024 subject of wanting to talk to my parents and not taking it forward to utter even a word while called, as well as while a single ring was given for name sake, the very pattern of avoiding and cheating seems the same patern that is followed by Mr.Nishanth. It is not out of context to state that this could be a team work as I have also found out from my sources about his past and it is not one, as I'm only one in many and the same looks like has been encouraged in the family by the way his parents started misleading and avoiding me. Furthermore, due to his actions of giving me false hopes and under the same pretext getting me pregnant twice and forcing me to go through surgery both the times at North Bangalore hospital, Kalyannagar, on 23rd April 2023 and Natus Hospital, Sarjapur on 17th March 2024 wherein he himself has signed and written in his own handwriting "HUSBAND" and after all this torture that he put me throughwhich I endured only with a hope of getting married which he had promised, now he has blocked me and vanished. I have gone through a lot of pain because of the wrongful actions of Mr. Nishanth, I'm being pronounced as clinically depressed and have been suffering with insomani and loneliness, it is only now I could take the first step of taking this action against Mr. Nishanth (when I'm still under medication for recovery) as I do not want any other women to go through what I have gone through at the hands of Mr. Nishanth. It is not out of context to mention here that the actions of Mr. Nishanth and his family members have damaged me physically, emotionally and financially. I request you to take action against Mr.Nishanth, his father Mr. Ramesh, his mother Mrs. Padma, and his sister Mrs. Nithya Joseph, under in the interest of justice and punish them in accordance with law." 9. In the entire complaint, the complaint is the narration of the travel odyssey of accused No.1 with the complainant and does not relate to any offence against these - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35976 CRL.P No. 8927 of 2024 petitioners - the parents of accused No.1 and the sister of accused No.1. All that the complaint narrates is only of uttering the words that they are Brahmins and the complainant belongs to another caste and the equations would not come about. Barring this, there is no other allegation that would touch upon the ingredients of either Sections 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 or Sections 504 and 506, of the earlier regime, the IPC. 10. 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 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.” 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35976 CRL.P No. 8927 of 2024 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 (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 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35976 CRL.P No. 8927 of 2024 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 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.” - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35976 CRL.P No. 8927 of 2024 (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 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) 11. The Apex Court in the case of MOHD. WAJID supra, has interpreted what is necessary to be the ingredients of an offence under Section 504 of the IPC as obtaining in 503 of the IPC. The same is with the new avatar Section 351(2) of the BNS, 2023. Therefore, the finding or the ingredients that are necessary would not change whether it is BNS or the earlier regime, the IPC qua the offence against these petitioners i.e., - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35976 CRL.P No. 8927 of 2024 Sections 504 or 506 of the IPC or Section 351(2) of the BNS, 2023. 12. Therefore, the question with regard to what law would be applicable or what offence can be drawn against the accused, whether it is of the BNS or the IPC would be considered in the case of accused No.1 as Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, that is drawn against accused No.1 for the first time introduced on 01.07.2024. Insofar as these petitioners are concerned, permitting further investigation would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in Crime No.341/2024 stands quashed qua the petitioners. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4