- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010436492026 NC: 2026:KHC:42721 CRL.P No. 9311 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9311 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SATISH KUMAR K (WRONGLY SHOWN AS "SATISHKUMAR" IN FIR) C/O KALACHARI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A NO. 131, RAMA DHAMA BUILDING, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, RAMAIAH NORTH CITY, BEHIND ELEMENTS MALL, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, NAGAWARRA, DR. SHIVAMMA KARANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 077. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AIYAPPA K.G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NANGALI P.S., KOLAR DIST. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O UNKNOWN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010436492026 NC: 2026:KHC:42721 CRL.P No. 9311 of 2026 OCCUPATION: SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE NANGALI PS, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR, KARNATAKA - 563 132. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE FIR DATED 22.06.2026 IN CRIME NO.124/2026 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 NANGLI POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 132 AND 352 OF BNS 2023 (ALSO PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC (JR.DN) AND JMFC MULBAGAL KOLAR DISTRICT) AT ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.124/2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 132 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 / Section 353 of the earlier regime, the Indian Penal Code, 1860. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010436492026 NC: 2026:KHC:42721 CRL.P No. 9311 of 2026 2. Heard Sri. Aiyappa K.G., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Waheeda M.M. learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. The complainant is the Station House Officer of the police station. The petitioner is said to have come to the police station or barged into the police station and spoken in loud voice, that has become a crime. The petitioner visits the police station for the purpose of enquiry of what has become of Crime No.120/2026. While so enquiring about the said crime, as the lady involved in the said crime had been abused or outraged the modesty of. The petitioner when visits the police station with regard to the progress in investigation with regard to Crime No.120/2026 and questions the Police Sub Inspector about the delay or otherwise, emerges the subject crime against the petitioner. Therefore, offence is punishable under Sections 132 and 352 of the BNS. The registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010436492026 NC: 2026:KHC:42721 CRL.P No. 9311 of 2026 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that for an offence to become punishable under Section 132 of the BNS / Section 353 of the IPC, use of criminal force to deter a public servant from performing his duties is imperative. The learned counsel submits that mere raising the voice will not fit into the ingredients of the said offence. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader would however submit that the matter is still at the stage of investigation, therefore this Court should not interfere with the same, but permit the investigation to be taken to its logical conclusion to file a final report, thereon. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The pendency of the earlier crime is a matter of record. The petitioner visiting the police station for enquiry about the crime is again a matter of record, as the complaint itself narrates that - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010436492026 NC: 2026:KHC:42721 CRL.P No. 9311 of 2026 he had visited the police station for enquiring the said crime. If enquiry of a crime can result in the offence under Section 353 of the IPC, it would be permitting the prosecution to initiate proceedings on someone speaking in a loud voice even to the police. The issue is whether the petitioner should be tried for the offence under Section 353 of the IPC. Section 353 of the IPC reads as follows: “353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” Section 353 mandates that a public servant should be stopped from performing duties by usage of criminal force. There is no allegation in the case at hand that the petitioner indulged in assault of a public servant or used criminal force which came in the way of the public servant performing her duties. 8. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter, as the Apex Court in the case of K - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010436492026 NC: 2026:KHC:42721 CRL.P No. 9311 of 2026 DHANANJAY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (CABINET SECRETARY) in SLP (CRL.) No.5905 of 2022 while considering an identical allegation has held as follows: “…. …. …. We have now perused the copy of the complaint which was given by Respondent No. 5 – Ms. A. Thomeena, Deputy Registrar to the Inspector of Police, Ulsoor Police Station, Bangalore. The same reads as under : - “Sir, Today at 3.05 PM, we had one incident in our office. One Shri Dhananjay who had been a party to the proceedings before us had filed a complaint before the Chief Information Commission seeking certain documents. The CIC vide order No.CIC/CAD/MT/A/ 2018/611756/SD dated 01.07.2019 and asked us to give some documents. We had kept every document ready and asked him to come and get it and inspect the document which he wanted. But apparently he wanted some other documents also which we felt had nothing to do with the order of the CIC. Therefore, being an official document, we had refused. Thereupon he started shouting and threatening us. At that time Smt. Rajashri, CPIO, Smt. Rekhashree, who is my PS, and Smt. Geetha who is an MTS were in the room. He threatening and shouted at them and disrupted the work of the office. Hearing the shouts and cries, people around gathered and I had immediately informed the police. Kindly take necessary action.” It is on the basis of the above complaint that an FIR has been lodged against the appellant. However, the only allegation against the appellant in the said complaint is that he was shouting and threatening the staff. This itself will not amount to any assault. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010436492026 NC: 2026:KHC:42721 CRL.P No. 9311 of 2026 Assault is defined under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code as under :- “353 Assault - Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.” We have reproduced the entire complaint hereinabove. On perusing the same, we find that none of the ingredients, as mentioned in Section 353 IPC, is reflected in the complaint letter. In other words, no offence under Section 353 IPC is made out in this case. The High Court, to our mind, has committed a mistake in not interfering in this case. This is a case which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, we allow this appeal and quash the entire proceedings initiated against the appellant.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that unless there is an allegation of assault or usage of criminal force against the accused, the accused cannot be tried for an offence under Section 353 of the IPC. It is an admitted fact that there is no allegation of the kind in the case at hand. What remains is the offence under Section 352 of the BNS / Section 504 of the IPC, which deals with breach of peace. The ingredients of the offence punishable - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010436492026 NC: 2026:KHC:42721 CRL.P No. 9311 of 2026 under Section 504 of the IPC is found in Section 503 of the IPC. Section 503 of the IPC reads as follows: "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 threats, 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." The interpretation of Section 503 of the IPC also 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 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 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010436492026 NC: 2026:KHC:42721 CRL.P No. 9311 of 2026 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 - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010436492026 NC: 2026:KHC:42721 CRL.P No. 9311 of 2026 (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 - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010436492026 NC: 2026:KHC:42721 CRL.P No. 9311 of 2026 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.” (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 - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010436492026 NC: 2026:KHC:42721 CRL.P No. 9311 of 2026 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) The Apex Court in the case of MOHD. WAJID supra holds the ingredients that are necessary to be met for an offence under Section 504 of the IPC is also missing in the case at hand. 9. Therefore, on all these issues, if further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would not only run foul of what the Apex Court has held, but would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010436492026 NC: 2026:KHC:42721 CRL.P No. 9311 of 2026 (ii) The investigation in crime No.124/2026 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Mulbagal, Kolar District, stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14