- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2489 CRL.A No. 1260 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1260 OF 2022 BETWEEN: PRIYANKA V. SRIDHAR D/O V. SRIDHAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.54, 6TH CROSS, 1ST STATE GOKULAM, MYSURU - 570 002 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVARAMA BHAT O, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER V.V. PURAM POLICE STATION, MYSURU CITY, MYSURU REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. BASAVARAJU S/O HOMBEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO.55, 6TH CROSS, 1ST STAGE, GOKULAM MYSURU - 570 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2489 CRL.A No. 1260 of 2022 THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.372 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.03.2022 PASSED IN C.C.NO.654/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C MYSURU BY CONVICTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard on admission. 2. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.03.2022 passed by the VI Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mysuru in CC.No.654/2017. 3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the appellant/complainant had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') against the accused. The learned Magistrate has referred the same to the Investigating Officer for investigation. After investigation, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). Thereafter, the case was registered in CC.No.654/2017. In - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2489 CRL.A No. 1260 of 2022 pursuance of summons, accused appeared before the Trial Court and enlarged on bail. The Trial Court has framed the charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. The same was explained to the accused and having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined six witnesses as PW.1 to PW.6 and two documents were marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. On closure of the prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded. The accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, they did not choose to lead any defence evidence on their behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 504 of IPC. 4. I have carefully examined the materials placed before this Court. 5. PW.1 - Priyanka V Sridhar has deposed in her evidence that, she knows the accused and he is her neighbour. On 01.04.2016 between 10:15 am and 10:30 am., when she was in her house, along with Nagaraju, Umesha, Kempamma - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2489 CRL.A No. 1260 of 2022 and Basamma, Basamma informed as to removal of sheets which are fixed to their house celler portion. After she went there and questioned the accused, the accused abused her in filthy language and also threatened her to take away of her life. Then Umesha, Basavaraju, Kempamma tried to prevent the accused from removal of sheets. Then the accused abused them and also assaulted Umesha with club/rod on his left hand. Then she lodged a private complaint to the police as per Ex.P1. 6. PW.2 - Umesha, PW.3 - Nagaraju, PW.4 - Basamma have also deposed the same in their evidence. PW.5 - Kempamma has not supported to the case of the prosecution. PW.6 - Siddhartha has deposed as to the mahazar conducted by the police as per Ex.P2. 7. On examination of entire materials placed on record, I do not find any essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 504 of IPC. Mere abuse of words in filthy language is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 504 of IPC. Accordingly, the Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective. Even on re-examination, re-consideration and re-appreciation of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2489 CRL.A No. 1260 of 2022 evidence on record, I do not find any legal or factual error committed by the Trial Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court records to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25