- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10105 OF 2024 BETWEEN: T.G. RAVI S/O. GOPALAPPA. T. V AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS ADVOCATE PRESENTLY GENERAL SECRETARY THE ADVOCATE ASSOCIATION BANGALORE R/AT NO.SF 19 HMS COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR, CUBBONPETE MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISHKUMAR R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALASURU GATE POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. MR. ISMAIL SHARIFF AGED MAJOR POLICE INSPECTOR HALASURU GATE POLICE STATION BANGALORE - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 AND 2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNNS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.25656/2018 AND SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO REGISTRATION OF FIR IN CR.NO.240/2003 BY HALASOORU GATE POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 323, 332, 341, 353, 427 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC INITIALLY PENDING IN THE FILES OF VI ACMM BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C. No.25656/2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 332, 341, 353, 427 read with Section 149 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri. Girishkumar R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: The petitioner is an Advocate by profession and on an incident that happens on 09.06.2003, a crime comes to be registered by respondent No.1 on the score that several advocates, were involved in a scuffle with the police on the said date. The complaint states that the police were restrained from moving anywhere, which would become an offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC. The complaint also states that these persons, had blocked the complainant and other police officers, who are public servants in discharge of their official - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 duties, by use of force, which would become an offence under Section 353 of the IPC. On the said complaint, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.240/2003 for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner becomes embroiled in the said crime based on the statement made by one Mr. T. Rajan. The police conduct investigation and file the charge sheet against the petitioner implicating him as accused No.3, which is now pending in C.C. No.25656/2018 before the concerned Court. The filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that none of the ingredients of Sections 341 or 353 of the IPC, as the case would be, are met in the case at hand. He further submits that, for what has happened in the Court premises, in no way can the offences under Sections 341 or 353 of the IPC be met, in the case at hand. 5. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner was involved in restraining the movement of the police officers, and was also involved in assaulting the police officers in the incident which occurred on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 the aforementioned date in the Court premises and therefore, no lenience should be shown and the petitioner should be directed to face trial and come out clean in a full blown trial. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material available on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. An incident happening in the Court premises on 09.06.2003 leads the respondent No.2 - complainant to register a complaint. The complaint reads as follows: “ೆಂಗಳರು ೆಂಗಳರು ೆಂಗಳರು ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ ನಗರ ನಗರ ನಗರ ಾನ ಾನ ಾನ ಾನ 6ೇ ೇ ೇ ೇ ಎಎಎಎ..ಎಂ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಎಂ.ಎಂ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಎಂ. ಾ ಾಲಯೆ ಾ ಾಲಯೆ ಾ ಾಲಯೆ ಾ ಾಲಯೆ ೇಧೆ: ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ, ಅಲಸೂರುೇ ೕ ! "ಾ#ೆಯ $ ಕತ'ವ ವ')ಸು*+ರುವ ೕ ! ಇ-./ೆಕ01 ವ')ಸು*+ರುವ ೕ ! ಇ-./ೆಕ01 23ೕ.ಇ4ಾ567 ಷ9ೕ:, ಆದ ಾನು ಾನ ಾ ಾಲಯೆ ಬ>ೆದುೊಂಡ 9ೕ' ಏೆಂದ>ೆ:- ಈ Bನ Bಾಂಕ 09/06/2003ರಂದು ಮುತ+ಪE >ೈ ೇನ ಪ3ಯುಕ+ ಾನು .ಎಂ.ಎಂ ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಬG ಕತ'ವ ದಲ$ರುHಾೆI ೕ ! HೈgïJೆ! ಮುKಾಂತರ Lಾ M ೋ' ಬG ಕNOಾರಗೂ ಮತು+ ವPೕಲ9ಗೂ ಗJಾQೆಾR, ವPೕಲರುಗಳS ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಮುಂOೆ ಜಾ6ರುUಾ+>ೆಂದು *Gದ ಸಂOೇಶದ Wೕ>ೆೆ ಾನು ಕೂಡJೇ ಬXಂY ಸWೕತ ೌಟುಂ\ ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಹ*+ರ ಬಂOೆನು ಸದ9 ಾ ಾಲಯವ^ ಾHೇ9ಭವನದ )ಂ`ಾಗದ a7 ೋ' ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಆವರಣದ $ರುUೆ+. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 ಈ Bನ ಪ3cಾನ ೌಟುಂ\ಕ ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಾ ಾYೕಶ>ಾದ 23ೕ.ಾೇಂದ3ಕುಾ1 ರವರ ಉಪe*ಯ $ 23ೕಮ*.ರೂಪ>ಾಜನ fಾಗೂ ಇವರ ಪ* g.>ಾಜನ ರವರ ೌಟುಂ\ಕ ಸಮ4ೆ (ೇ!.ನಂ.1623/03 ಮತು+ 269/03) ahಾರ#ೆಯ $ದುi, ಸುಾರು 11-00 ಗಂQೆ ಸಮಯ $ ಾ ಾYೕಶರು ಎರಡು ಕjೆಯವ9ಗೂ ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಆವರಣದ fೊರಗjೆ ಅಂದ>ೆ ಕನೂ Jೇಷ- ರೂMನ $ ಪರಸEರ ಚhೆ' ಾl ಬೆಹ9 ೊಳmೇೆಂದು ಆOೇಶ ೕlದiರು. ಇದೆ ಅನುಗುಣHಾR ರೂಪ>ಾಜನರವರ ಸfೋದರರು ಮತು+ ಅವರ ವPೕಲರು ಆದಂತಹ ಕುಾರ ಮತು+ ನಟ>ಾಜ fಾಗೂ ಅವರ nೊUೆಯ $ದi ಇೊoಬX ವPೕಲ>ಾದ 23ೕ.>ಾಮಾಬು ರವರು ಮತು+ >ಾಜನ ರವರ ವPೕಲರು ಆದಂತಹ 23ೕ.ಜಾಧ'ನ ರವರು ಸಹ ಇದುi ೌಟುಂ\ಕ ahಾರದ $ ಇಲ$9ಗೂ ಾ*ನ ಚಕMಕ ನjೆದು ಒಬX9ೊಬXರು ೈ ೈ MJಾ6 ಮತು+ >ಾಜನ ರವರ ವPೕಲ>ಾದ 23ೕ.ಜಾಧ'ನ ರವರು >ಾಜನ ರವರನುo ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಒಳೆ ಕ>ೆದುೊಂಡು fೋOಾಗ WೕJೆ *Gದ ಮೂರು ಜನ ವPೕಲ>ಾದಂತಹ 1) ಕುಾರ 2) ನಟ>ಾಜ ಮತು+ 3) 23ೕ>ಾಮಾಬು ರವರು fೊರೆ ಒಂದು >ಾಜನ ರವರು ವPೕಲರನುo ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಮುಂOೆ ಹಗೂ ಒಳೆ ಜಾ6 >ಾಜಜರವ9ೆ fೊjೆಸಲು ಯ*oOಾಗ >ಾಜನವ9ೆ fೊjೆಸಲು ಯ*oOಾಗ >ಾಜಸ ಾ ಾYೕಶರ ೊಠlಯ $ ಓlfೋR ಆಶ3ಯ ಪjೆದುೊಂಡರು. ಾ ಾYೕಶರು ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಾರ ಕJಾಪಗಳನುo ಸeRತೊG ಅವರ ೊಠlೆ fೊರಟುfೋದರು fಾಗೂ ಈ aಷಯವನುo ನಗರದ ೕ ! ಯಂತ3#ಾ ೋ#ೆೆ *Gದರು. ಅOೇ ಸಮಯದ $ WೕJಾYಾ9ಗಳS ಅಂದ>ೆ ಾನ 23ೕ.ೋ/ಾ7 \.ೋ/ಾ7 \.fೋಸೂ1 ಉಪ ೕ ! ಕMೕಷನ1 ೇಂದ3 a`ಾಗ, ಸfಾಯಕ ಕMೕಷನರ. ಆದ 23ೕ.ಎ-.l. ಮJಾ$ರವರು, ೕ ! ಇ-./ೆಕ01ಗsಾದ 1) 23ೕ. ಮುರತoಂ ಾಯುt, u.ಐ. ಕ\Xನ /ಾw' 2) 23ೕ.ಾJಾxಂy, u.ಐ aHೇಕನಗರ, 3) 23ೕ.ಮ94ಾzMೌಡ, u.ಐ, ಅ{ೆ|ೕಕನಗರ, 4) 23ೕ.ೆಜಸz ಎ!.nೆ./ಾw' 5) 23ೕ.ಆ1.>ಾಮಚಂದ3ನ, .u.fೈಗ3ಂ}. 8) 23ೕ.ಲN~ಪ*ೌಡ, u.ಐ. {ೇಾB3ಪ^ರಂ "ಾ#ೆ. 7) 23ೕ.2ವಮ5, u.ಐ. ಎ!.ಆ1.ನಗರ ೕ ! "ಾ#ೆ, fಾಗೂ ಇತ>ೇ ೕ ! ಅYಾ9ಗಳS ಸಹ ಸeಳೆ ಬಂBದುi, g.>ಾಜನ ಾ ಯYೕಶರ ೊಠlಯ $ ಇದುi ೌಟುಂ\ಕ ಾ ಾಲಯದ $ ಸುಾರು 300 9ಂದ 350 ಜನ ವPೕಲರು 4ೇ9ೊಂಡು g.>ಾಜನನುo fೊರೆ ಕಳS)ಸೇೆಂಬ ಇಲ$Hೇ ಅವೆ fೊರೆ ಎsೆಯುUೆ+Hೆ 'ಎಂದು ಉOೆiೕಶBಂದ ವ*'ಸು*+ದiರು. ಆ ಸಮಯದ $ ಸದ9 ಾ ಯಲಯರ u"ಾYಾ9ಯವ>ಾದ 23ೕ.ಾೇಂದ3 ಕುಾ1. ಅೋ' ಸಂPೕಣ'ದ 9x4ಾ•1 ಆದ 23ೕ.ಎ.ಮಂಜುಾಥ, ವPೕಲರನುo ಕು9ತು ಸಾcಾನBಂದ ಇರಲು fಾಗೂ ತ•ಣ ೋ' fಾ \ಟು0 fೊರೆ fೋಗಲು aನಂ*ೊಂಡರು ಇHೆಲ$ವ‚ ಏನೂ ಪ3ƒೕಜನHಾಗ ಲ$. ಉOೆiೕಶ ಗುಂಪ^ ಾ ಾYೕಶರ ೊಠlಯ $ ನುRIದi>ೆ fೇಳJಾಗದಷು0 ಅಾಹುತ ಆಗುವ ಸಂಭವ ಇದುiದi9ಂದ ೕ ಸರು - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 ಾ ಾYೕಶರ ೊಠlಯ `ಾR ನ $ ಾವಲುೈದು ಜಾ6ದi ವPೕಲರು ಮುನುoಗIರಂUೆ ಎಚ„ರವ)ದiರು. ಆ ಸಮಯದ $ ವPೕಲರು ಸಂಘದ ಅಧ •ರು ಆದ 23ೕ.ೆ.ಎ-.ಸುಾX>ೆlt ಮತು+ ಎ..ಕ\ೕನ ಉಚ„ ಾ ಾಲಯದ 9xಸ01 ಸಹ cಾa ಒಂದು ವPೕಲರನುo ಸಾcಾನೊG ಎಲ$ರೂ ವPೕಲರು ಸಂಘೆ fೋದ ಪ•ದ $ ಸದ9 >ಾಜನರವರನುo ಅ $ೆ ಕ>ೆದುೊಂಡು ಬರುವ^OಾR ಬರವ4ೆ ೕlದರು ಆದ>ೆ ಇHೆಲ$ವ‚ ಪ3ƒೕಜನಾ9 ಆಗ ಲ$, ಈ ವPೕಲರು ಗುಂಪ^ ಾ ಯಲಯದ $ ಇದi *gÉÆÃಸಕರಣಗಳನುo \4ಾ* ಅ¯Éä>ಾಗಳನುo ತGm fಾP. ಾಜುಗಳನುo fೊjೆದು fಾP ಾ ಾYೕಶರು ಕುGತುೊಳmವ uೕಠದ WೕJೆ ಹ*+ ತಮ5 ಇನoಷು0 ಉOೆiೕಶ HಾUಾವರಣವನುo ಸೃ‡0 ಾlದರು fಾಗೂ >ಾಜನರವರನುo ತಮ5 ವಶೆ ೊಡOೇ fೊರೆ fೋಗುವ^Bಲ$Hೆಂದು ಪಟು0)lದರು. ಅ $ದi ಾ ಾYೕಶರ fಾಗೂ 9x4ಾ•1ಗಳ ಸಮ5*ಯಂUೆ ೕ ! ಅYಾ9ಗಳ ಸದ9 >ಾಜನನುo ಸುತು+ವ9ದುೊಂಡು fೊರೆ ತರಲು ಧ'9ಸJಾ6ತು ಆ ಸಮಯೆ ೋಟು' fಾ7ನ $ ಮತು+ ೋg'ನ ˆಗ4ಾJೆಯನುo fಾಗೂ ೋg'ನ ಆವರಣದ $ ಸುಾರು 2000 ಜನ ªÀಕಲರು 4ೇ9ದುi, ಇವರ ಮcೆ Bಂದ >ಾಜನನುo ಸುತು+ವ9ದುೊಂಡು ಸುರNತHಾR ೆಳೆ Uೆೆದುೊಂಡು fೋಗುವ ೕ ಸರ ಯತoವ^ aಫಲHಾR ಉOೆiೕಶHಾRದುi ವPೕಲರು ೕ ! ಅYಾ9ಗಳನುo ತಳSmUಾ+ >ಾಜನೆ ೈ6ಂದ ಮತು+ ೈಗGಂದ ಇತ>ೇ ವಸು+ಗGಂದ fೊjೆಯಲು ಯ*oದರು fಾಗೂ aಪ9ೕತ ಗಯೊGದರು ಅ*ಶ3ಮBಂದ ಸದ9 >ಾಜನನುo ೆಳೆ ಂ*ದi xೕŠ ನಂ.15ಎ. 01-09- 1304 ರ $ ತಂದು ಕುGm9Oಾಗ ವPೕಲರು ಗುಂಪ^ ಆತನ WೕJೆ ಹJೆ$ ಾl xೕuನ WೕJೆ ಹ*+ xೕuನ QಾŠ, 4ೈಡು, ೕಟು, ವೈ>ೆಗಳನo ಜಖಂೊG ಒಳಗjೆ ಸಹ ಆತನನುo )ಾI ಮುಗIHಾR fೊjೆದರು. ಆ ಸಮಯದ $ ೕ ! ಇ-./ೆಕ01ಗsಾದ 23ೕ.ಆ1.>ಾಮಚಂದ3, u.ಐ ºÉÊUÀæA} oÁ#ೆ, 2) 23ೕ ೆಜಪE, u.u ಎ!./ಾw' "ಾ#ೆ ಇವ9ೆ ಾಯHಾRರುತ+Oೆ. ಇದಲ$Oೆ xೕŠ hಾಲಕಾದ 23ೕ.ಕುಾo ಹುಚ„ಯ fೆŒ.. 573 2ವಣ• u, 2414 ಚಂದ3ಣ• u. 7139 ೋ' ೆಂŽಕ$w' 23ೕ.ಜಗBೕ• fಾಗೂ 23ೕ.4ಾ• ರವ9ೆ ಸಹ ಾಯಗsಾRರುತ+Oೆ. xೕಪನುo ಚJಾ6ಸಲು ಯ*oದ hಾಲಕನುo ೆಳೆ ತGm ಾlಯ Pೕಬಂಚನುo Uೆೆದುೊಂಡರು. xೕuನ WೕJೆ ಹJೆ$ ನjೆದ ವPೕಲರು, xೕuನ ಚಕ3ದ ಾGಯನುo \ಟು0 ಮುಗುಚಲು ಪ3ಯತo ನjೆಸು*+Oಾiಗ, ೕ ಸರು, ಅವರನುo ತಳSm ದೂರು ಾl. ಈ ಅಾವ^ತವನುo ತuEದರು. ಈ ಘಟೆಯ $ 2000 ಜನ /ಾJೊIಂlದುi, ಇವರುಗಳ /ೈP ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡವರು ಾನhಾವ#ೆಯ $ದುi, ಪ3hೋB ಈ ಕೃತ ಗಳನುo /ಾJೊIಂlದುi, ಅವರನುo ಅಂದ>ೆ 1) ಪರWೕಶ, 2) uUಾಳ, 3) ಕುಾ1. 4) ನಟ>ಾಜ, 5) 23ೕ.>ಾ‘ ಾಬು, 6) ಅಶzಥಾ>ಾಯಣ 7) ಚಂದ3ಪE, 8) ರಂಗಾಥ, 9) aಶzಾಥ, 10) ಸುಬ3ಮಣ . 11) >ಾಜು, 12) ಹ9ೕ•, 13) ಉದಯ, 14) 23ೕHಾಸ, 15) gÀWÀÆ fಾಗೂ, 16 ಅ{ೆ|ೕಕ ಇವ>ೆಲ$ರೂ ವPೕಲ>ಾRದುi, ಗುರು*ಸJಾ6ತು. ನಂತರ ೕ ಸರು hಾ#ಾ•ೆ6ಂದ cೈಯðವನುo ಕುRIಸOೇ ಇೊoಂದು ೕ ! Hಾಹನವನುo ತಂದು - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 >ಾಜನನುo ಅದೆ ಸesಾಂತ9 ತ•ಣ ’PUೆ.ಾV aೊ0ೕ9ಾ ಆಸEUೆ3ೆ ಕಳS)ಸJಾ6ತು. ಸದ9 ಾಯೊಂಡ ೕ ! ಅYಾ9 ಮತು+ ಬXಂYಯನುo ಸಹ ಆಸEUೆ3ೆ ಕಳS) ೊಡJಾROೆ. ಈ ಘಟೆಯು Bಾಂಕ 09/06/2003 ರಂದು ೆGೆI 11:30 9ಂದ ಸುಾರು 2- 00 ಗಂQೆವ>ೆೆ ಾ ಾಲಯದ fಾ7 ಮತು+ ಆವರಣದ $ ನjೆBದುi ಈ ಬೆI ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ0 ಅYಾ9ಗಳS ಾರೂ ಪgÁåರನುo ೕಡOೆ ಇರುವ^ದ9ಂದಲೂರ ಮತು+ ಾನು ಈ ಘಟೆಯ ಪ3ತ • ದ2'ಾRರುವ^ದ9ಂದಲೂ fಾಗೂ ಈ ಘಟೆ ಬೆI ಮುಂBನ ತKೆ ನjೆಸುವ^ದು ಅವಶ ಕUೆ ಇರುವ^ದ9ಂದ "ಾ#ೆೆ )ಂ*ರುಗOೆ ನಂತರ ಈ Bನ Bಾಂಕ 09/06/2003 ರಂದು 14:30 ರ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è oÁuÁ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.240/2003 PÀ®A 143, 147, 341, 353, 323, 427, gÉ/« 149 L¦¹ ಪ3ಾರ ಸೂƒೕ ˆೕQೋ ಪ3ಕರಣ Oಾಖಲು ಾl ೊಂlರುUೆ+ೕೆ. Sd/- Sub-Inspector, Ulsoor Gate Police Station Bangalore City.” The police, after conducting investigation, file the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.7, reads as follows: ““PÀ®A 143, 147, 341, 353, 323, 332 427, ¸À»vÀ 149, L¦¹ Bಾಂಕ 9.3.03 ೆGೆI ಸುಾರು 11-30 ಗಂQೆ6ಂದ 14-00 ಗಂQೆಯ ನಡುHೆ ೆಂಗಳರು ನಗರ ಹಲಸೂರು ೇ ೕ! "ಾ#ೆಯ ಸರಹBiನ $ರುವ ಹsೆ ೕ!0 ಆ˜ೕ! ರ4ೆ+ g a7 ಮತು+ 4ೇಷ- ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಕಟ0ಡದ $ರುವ ೌಟುಂ\ಕ ಾ ಾಲಯದ $ 4ಾN 28 ರವರು ತಮ5 ೌಟುಂ\ಕ ೇ! ನಂಬ1 ಎಂ …. 2001 ahಾರ#ೆೆ ಇದುi ಾ ಾಲಯದ $ fಾಜ>ಾR ತಮ5 ಎದು>ಾG (fೆಂಡ*) ೌಟುಂ\ಕ ಾ ಾಲಯೆ fಾಜ>ಾRದುi aZÁgÀದ $ 4 ಮತು+ 2 £Éà ಾಲಂನ $ ನಮೂBರುವ ಆ>ೋuಗಳS fಾಗೂ ಇತ>ೆ 250 ರ 9ಂದ 300 ಜನ ಯುವ ವPೕಲ>ೊಂBೆ ಸಾನ ಉOೆiೕಶBಂದ ಅಕ3ಮ ಗುಂಪ^ 4ೇ9 aಾಾರಣ ಜಗಳ Uೆೆದು ಗJಾQೆ ಾl 4ಾN 28 ರವರು ಾ ಾಲಯBಂದ fೊರೆ ಆ ಬರದಂUೆ ತjೆದು ಬಂBದುi ೕ! "ಾ#ೆಯ $ ಕ>ಾತರುHಾR ಕರತರುHಾR ೕಸರನುo `ೇB 10 jAzÀ 27ರ ವ>ೆRನ 4ಾNOಾರ9ೆ ಮತು+ 31ೇ 4ಾNOಾರರ ಕತ'ವ ೆ ಅltಪl ಪ3cಾನ ೌಟುಂ\ಕ ಾ ಾಲಯದ $ 4ಾN 28ರವ>ೆೆ ೈಗGಂದ - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 fೊjೆದು ಾಲುಗGಂದ ಒದುi ಾಯೊG ಾ ಾಲಯದ $ದi ಅJೆ5ರ ಒjೆದುfಾP 4ಾNಗಳS ಲು$ವ ಾw. ಮು9ದು fಾP ಾ ಾYೕಶರು ಕುGತುೊಳSmವ ಡಾ! WೕJೆ ಹ*+ ಕು’'ಗಳನುo \4ಾl sೆm fೊjೆಯುUಾ+ ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಾಯ' ಕJಾಪಗGೆ CrØAiÀÄÄAlÄ …… £Àqɹ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 1000gÀÆ £ÀµÀ× GAlĪÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ಮUೆ+ 4ಾN 28 ರವರನುo ೕ! "ಾ#ೆಯ $ g a7 ಾ ಾಲಯ ಕಟ0ಡದ ಮುಂOೆ ಂ*ದi ೕ! xೕŠ ನಂಬ1 ೆಎ 01 x 1304ರ $ ಕ>ೆತಂದು ಕುGm9Oಾಗ Wೕಲಂಡ ಆ>ೋuಗಳS ಮತು+ ಇತ>ೆ ಸುಾರು 1500 9ಂದ 2000 ಜನ ಯುವ ವPೕಲರು ಕಲು$ ಇg0ೆಗGಂದ fೊjೆದು ರಕ+ ಾಯಪlರುUಾ+>ೆ ಅಲ$Oೇ 4ಾN -20 ರವ9ೆ ಸಹ ೈಗGಂದ fೊjೆದು ಹJೆ$ ಾl ಕತ'ವ ೆ ಅltಪl ೕ! xೕŠ ನಂಬ1 ೆಎ 01 x 1304 1 ಚಕ3ಗಳ ಾGಯನುo \ಟು0 ೕಟುಗಳನುo ಹ9ದು Hಾಹನೆ ಜಖಂೊG ಸಾ'ರೆ ಸುಾರು 10000 ರೂ ನಷ0 ಉಂಟು ಾlರುUಾ+>ೆ. ಆದುದ9ಂದ ಆ>ೋuಗಳ aರುದ› Wೕ ನ ಕJಾA 9ೕ*ಯ ಆ>ೋಪ#ೆ.” (SIC) 8. The issue now would be, when the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet are read in tandem, whether it would amount to the alleged offences or otherwise. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 341 and 353 of the IPC being the primary offences inter alia. Sections 341 and 353 of the IPC, read as follows: "341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.— Whoever wrongfully restrains any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 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." 9. For an offence to become punishable under Section 341 of the IPC, the ingredients as obtaining under Section 339 of the IPC should be necessarily met. The complaint or the charge sheet so filed is not indicative of the fact that respondent No.2 - complainant was not allowed to move in any direction by use of force by the petitioner. That being so, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KEKI HORMUSJI GHARDA v. MEHERVAN RUSTOM IRANI1, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “…. …. …. 11. It is in the aforementioned backdrop of events, the statement made by the first respondent that Accused 1 to 5 were managing the affairs of the Company and had instigated Accused 6 to construct the road must be viewed. It is one thing to say that the Company had asked Accused 6 to make construction but only because Accused 1 to 5 were its Directors, the same, in our opinion, would not be sufficient to fasten any criminal liability on them for commission of an offence under Section 341 IPC or otherwise. 1 (2009) 6 SCC 475 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 12. “Wrongful restraint” has been defined under Section 339 IPC in the following words: “339. Wrongful restraint.—Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person. Exception.—The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section.” The essential ingredients of the aforementioned provision are: (1) Accused obstructs voluntarily; (2) The victim is prevented from proceeding in any direction; (3) Such victim has every right to proceed in that direction. 13. Section 341 IPC provides that: “341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.— Whoever wrongfully restrains any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.” 14. The word “voluntary” is significant. It connotes that obstruction should be direct. The obstructions must be a restriction on the normal movement of a person. It should be a physical one. They should have common intention to cause obstruction. 15. The appellants herein were not at the site. They did not carry out any work. No overt act or physical obstruction on their part has been attributed. Only because legal proceedings were pending between the Company and Bombay Municipal Corporation and/or with the first respondent herein, the same would not by itself mean that the appellants were in any way concerned with commission of a - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 criminal offence of causing obstructions to the first respondent and his parents. 16. We have noticed hereinbefore that despite of the said road being under construction, the first respondent went to the police station thrice. He, therefore, was not obstructed from going to the police station. In fact, a firm action had been taken by the authorities. The workers were asked not to do any work on the road. We, therefore, fail to appreciate that how, in a situation of this nature, the Managing Director and the Directors of the Company as also the Architect can be said to have committed an offence under Section 341 IPC. …… …… …… 19. Even as regards the availability of the remedy of filing an application for discharge, the same would not mean that although the allegations made in the complaint petition even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, do not disclose an offence or it is found to be otherwise an abuse of the process of the court, still the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 20. Indisputably, there might have been some delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the High Court but while adjusting equity the High Court was required to take into consideration the fact that in a case of this nature the appellants would face harassment although the allegations contained in the complaint petition even assuming to be correct were trivial in nature. The High Court furthermore has failed to take into consideration the fact that in the first information report no allegation in regard to acts of common intention or common object on the part of the appellants was made out. The appellants were not named as accused therein. It is, therefore, really difficult to appreciate as to on what basis the complaint petition was filed. 21. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The order summoning the appellant is quashed.” (Emphasis supplied) - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment holds that for an offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC the essential ingredients under Section 339 of the IPC which have to be necessarily met are that, the accused must obstruct voluntarily, the victim must be prevented from proceeding in any direction and such victim must have every right to proceed in that direction, all of which are absent in the case at hand. Therefore, the offence under Section 341 of the IPC is loosely laid against the petitioner. 10. The next offence is the one punishable under Section 353 of the IPC. The interpretation of Section 353 of the IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. 10.1. The Apex Court, in the case of HARI NANDAN SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND2, while quashing the criminal case registered against the petitioners therein, holds that an offence under Section 353 of the IPC is not made out in 22025 SCC OnLine SC 574 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 the absence of assault or use of force. The Apex Court observes as follows: “…. …. …. 16. We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar. For the sake of immediate reference, we extract Sections 353, 298 and 504 of the IPC as under: “Section 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 to 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 298 : Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings. Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Section 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 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. …. …. …. 18. Applying the aforesaid judgment to the present case in light of what has been extracted above as the relevant portion of the First Information Report in light of the offence alleged as against the appellant herein, we do not find that any ingredients of the offences alleged as against the appellant herein find place in FIR registered as against him. 19. A bare perusal of Case No. 140 of 2020 reveals that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the appellant under Sections 353, 298, and 504 IPC are not made out. Evidently, there was no assault or use of force by the appellant to attract Section 353 IPC. Therefore, the High Court ought to have discharged the appellant under Section 353 IPC. Further, the appellant is accused of hurting the religious feelings of the informant by calling him “Miyan-Tiyan” and “Pakistani.” Undoubtedly, the statements made are poor taste. However, it does not amount to hurting the religious sentiments of the informant. Hence, we are of the opinion that the appellant shall also be discharged under Section 298 IPC. Additionally, we find that the appellant cannot be charged under Section 504 IPC, as there was no act on his part that could have provoked a breach of peace and accordingly, deserves to be discharged under Section 504 IPC as well.” ((Emphasis supplied) 10.2. Subsequently, the Apex Court in the case of UMASHANKAR YADAV AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANOTHER3, 32025 SCC OnLine SC 1066 - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 lays down the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 353 of the IPC and observes as follows: “…. …. …. 17. The moot issue is do the uncontroverted allegations as narrated in the chargesheet disclose the ingredients of offences under Sections 186 and 353 IPC ? 18. Essential ingredients of offence under Section 186 are as follows:— (i) Obstruction of a public servant in discharge of public functions (ii) Such obstruction is done voluntarily and with the intention to prevent discharge of official duties. 19. Section 353 is attracted when the following ingredients are satisfied:— (i) Use of assault or criminal force on a public servant during execution of his duty. (ii) With the intention:— (a) to prevent or deter discharge of such duty; or (b) as a consequence of anything done or attempted to be done in the lawful discharge of his duty. 20. The words force and criminal force are defined in Sections 349 and 356 IPC and ‘assault’ is defined in Section 351 of the said Code. 21. A person is said to use force when: (i) He causes motion, change in motion or cessation of motion of another person by: - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 (a) use of bodily power; or (b) using a substance which comes in contact of the body, wearing apparel etc or with anything which affects the other person's senses; or (c) inducing any animal to move or change its motion or cease to move. 22. Criminal force is defined as use of force by a person in order to commit an offence or done with the intention that such force is to cause or likely to cause injury, fear and annoyance to other person. 23. Assault involves any gesture or preparation which is done with the intention that such gesture or preparation will cause an apprehension about use of criminal force. Use of criminal force or assault on a public servant is essential to attract Section 353 IPC. 24. Coming to the facts of the case, uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet do not disclose use of force or holding out threatening gestures giving rise to an apprehension of use of force towards public servant. Physical movement of the labourers would not amount to use of force far less criminal force on a public servant. 25. Given this situation, we can safely conclude uncontroverted allegations in the chargesheet do not disclose the ingredients of offence under Section 353 IPC.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court, which clearly indicate what would become an offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC, the allegations would not be met even to its semblance, as the petitioner has not by - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 use of criminal force stopped the complainant, a public servant from performing his official duty. Moreover, the incident is said to have happened in the corridors of the Court of law, where the complainant was ostensibly free to move. The other offences have sprung only from the aforesaid incident, which is inherently improbable. 11. In that light, notwithstanding the fact that the proceedings have travelled to some extent, permitting further proceedings to continue would become an abuse of the process of the law and would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL4, wherein it is held as follows: “…. …. …. 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2282 CRL.P No. 10105 of 2024 proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.25656/2018 pending on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stands quashed qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48