- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2281 CRL.P No. 11455 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. 11455 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MR. SANDEEP K. REDDY S/O. KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO. 50, GULAKAMALE VILLAGE TARALU POST, BANGALORE - 560 062. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR G.M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION, THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2281 CRL.P No. 11455 of 2024 2. SEETHARAM, S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, GULAKAMALE VILLAGE, TARALU POST, BANGALORE - 560 062. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H.R. VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT)) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING THAT THE CASE PENDING IN C.C.NO.8580/2018 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.344/2016 PERTAINING TO KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 504, 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONOURABLE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE, MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2281 CRL.P No. 11455 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following relief: "Wherefore, considering the fact circumstances of the case, it is most humbly prayed before this honourable court that the case pending in in C.C. No.8580/2018 arising out of crime No.344/2016 pertaining to Kaggalipura Police Station, for the offences punishable under section 504, 506 read with section 34 of IPC now pending on the file of Honourable Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bangalore, may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice and equity." 2. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 - State, this Court, on 07.01.2026, had passed the following order: "Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.8580 of 2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The allegation is that the accused No.1/Rizwan @ Kulla called from a particular mobile phone and asked the complainant to withdraw the PIL filed by him. Accused Nos.2 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2281 CRL.P No. 11455 of 2024 and 3 are also said to have threatened the complainant that if he would not withdraw the PIL, his life would be in threat. Petitioner/accused No.3 is before the Court. It transpires that after 10 days of the alleged incident, the PIL itself is dismissed on merits. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant remains absent. Therefore, as a last chance, list this matter on 14.01.2026. In the event the learned counsel for the complainant remains absent, orders would be passed on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner." 3. It was clearly indicated that the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 had remained continuously absent and in the event he would remain absent, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would be heard and appropriate orders would be passed. In the light of his absence, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. Naveen Kumar G.M. and the learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 – State, Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, are heard in the matter. 4. Facts in brief germane are as follows: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2281 CRL.P No. 11455 of 2024 The petitioner is accused No.3, the 2nd respondent, the complainant. A complaint comes to be registered, which becomes a crime in Crime No.344/2016 for offences punishable under Section 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The police, after investigation, file a charge sheet in the case at hand, which is now pending as C.C.No.8580/2018. The filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner has no role to play in the offences alleged, as it is against accused Nos.1 and 2, as the case would be. The allegation against the petitioner is that accused Nos.2 and 3 have threatened the complainant on a particular call received from accused No.1. Barring the said statement, there is nothing against the petitioner, is what is projected. 6. Learned HCGP would however contend that it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full blown trial, as accused No.1 sitting in the prison has threatened the complainant to withdraw the case. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2281 CRL.P No. 11455 of 2024 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsels and have perused the material available on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. It is germane to notice the complaint, which reads as follows: "ರವೆ ಾ ಾ ಅಾಗಳ ಕಗೕಪರ ೕ ಾ ೆ ೆಂಗಳರು ಾನ ೆ, !ಷಯ: ಉ%ೕ& S/O ನರ'ಂಹಯ ಅ)ಾ ಕುಳ* ಎಂಬುವವಂದ ಕೃಷ/ ೆ01 ಮತು4 ಅವರ ಮಗ ಸಂೕ6 ರವರು ಕ ೆ ಾ0 ೊ8ೆ ೆದೆ 9ಾ:ರುವ ಕುತು ದೂರು. ;ಾ<=, ೆಂಗಳರ ದ>ಣ @ಾಲೂBಕು, ಉತ4ರಹC* 9ೋಬC, ಗುಲಕಮ8ೆ ಾDಮದB EಾಸEಾFರುವ 8ೇG Eೆಂಕಟ ಾಮನಪI ಅವರ ಮಗJಾದ, ಸುಾರು 45 ವಷK ವಯ'Lನ 'ೕ@ಾ ಾM ಅNಾ, Jಾನು ೋC OPೆQ EಾRಾರ ಮತು4 ವವ;ಾಯ ಾ0ೊಂ0ರು@ೆ4ೕJೆ. ೆಂಗಳರ ದ>ಣ @ಾಲೂBಕು, ಉತ4ರಹC* 9ೋಬC, ಗುಲಕಮ8ೆ ಾDಮದ ಸ.ನಂ. 75/1 ರB ಅSತ T8ಾK ಅ8ಾIPೆU ಕVಸDWV =PೆX ಕಂಪYಯು ಅನಕೃತEಾF Y=KಸುZ4ರುವ ೆ0[ =UL '%ಂG ಾ\ಾKJೆ ಇಂದ ಸುತ4ಮುತ4ನ ಜನ;ಾಾನರ ಆ ೋಗದ %ೕ8ೆ ದುಷI ಾಮ Tೕರ8ಾFದು`, ಮತು4 ೆaೆ ಾ\ಾKJೆ ಧೂCಂದ ನಶEಾಗುವ ಾರಣSಂದ, ಮತು4 ಾ\ಾKJೆಯ ಕಲೂdತ Yೕರು ಾಜಾಲುEೆೆ Tಡುವದಂದ ಾ;ಾಯYಕ =ಶDಣEಾF ಆ Yೕನ ಬfಂದ ೈತರ ೆaೆ ಸಂಪhಣK JಾಶEಾಗiೆ. ಈ ಾ\ಾKJೆಯು ಕJಾKಟಕ ಪಸರ ಾನ ಾk`ಯನುl @ೊ ೆದು, ಮತು4 ಸmCೕಯ ಾDಮ ಪಂnಾಯZಯ ಅನುಮZ ಪNೆಯiೆ, ಮತು4 ಸಣ/ Yೕ ಾವ ಇ8ಾ\ೆ ಅನುಮZ ಪNೆಯiೆ Y=Kಸ8ಾFiೆ. ಅJೇಕ ಾ ಈ ಾ\ಾKJೆ ಸmaಾಂತಸಲು ಒ@ಾ4f'ದರು, ಮನ! ಾ0ದರು, ಸIಂSಸiೆ ಪDpಾವವನುl ಬಲEಾF ಬಳ'ೊಂಡು Y=K'iಾ` ೆ. ಈ ಾ\ಾKJೆ !ರುದq ಮನ ಉಚs Jಾ)ಾಲಯದB - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2281 CRL.P No. 11455 of 2024 Writ Petition No. 43115-119/2016 iಾವವನುl iಾಖ'ರು@ೆ4ೕEೆ. uೕFರುEಾಗ, YJೆl ೆಳೆ 11:17 ಗಂPೆೆ 8904334554 Oೈv ಸಂ\ೆfಂದ ಕ ೆ ಮೂಲಕ ಕುಳ* ನನl Oೈv ಸಂ\ೆ 9483796999 ೆ ಸಂiೇಶ ಬಂದು, ಈ ಸಂ\ೆೆ ಕ ೆಾಡ8ಾFದು`, Jಾನು wಾ<V ಅ)ಾ ಕುಳ*, Yೕನು ಗುಲಕಮ8ೆಯB ಆSತ T8ಾK ಅ8ಾIPೆU ಕVಸWV =PೆX ಕಂಪYಯ iಾEೆಯನುl uಂಪNೆSದ` ೆ, Yನೆ Jಾನು wೈನBiೆ`ೕJೆ, ೊಂiೆ ೊ8ೆ ಾ0ಸು@ೆ4ೕJೆ, TಟುQTಡು ಈ !nಾರ, ಎಂದು ೆದೆ 9ಾ:ರು@ಾ4 ೆ. ಮತು4 ಇಂದು ಕೃಷ/ ೆ01 ಮತು4 ಅವರಮಗ ಸಂೕ6 ಮತು4 ಉ%ೕ& S/O ನರ'ಂಹಯ ರವರು ಇಂದು ೆಳೆ ಮJೆೆ ಬಂದು, Yೕನು iಾEೆಯನುl uಂಪNೆSದ` ೆ Yನl %ೕ8ೆ ಇಲBಸಲBದ ೇ 9ಾ:' Yನlನುl ಕತ4' 9ಾ: TೕS 9ೆಣ ಾಡು@ೆ4ೕEೆ, ಕುಳ* ಕ ೆಾ0ದು` Jೆನxiೆ)ಾ ಎಂದು ೆದೆ 9ಾಕು@ಾ4 ಇರು@ಾ4 ೆ. uೕಾF ೆದೆ 9ಾ:ದ ಉ%ೕ& S/O ನರ'ಂಹಯ ಮತು4 wಾ<V ಅ)ಾ ಕುಳ*, ಕೃಷ/ ೆ01 ಮತು4 ಅವರ ಮಗ ಸಂೕ6 ರವಂದ ನನೆ ರW ೆ Yೕ0, ಇವರ !ರುದq ಕDಮ ೈೊಳ*ೇೆಂದು ತಮyB ಮನ!. ವಂದJೆಗaೆಂSೆ" 9. The police, after conduct of investigation, have filed the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17, reads as follows: "17.ೇ'ನ ಸಂ>ಪ4, ;ಾ ಾಂಶ ಕಲಂ 504.506 wೊ@ೆೆ 34 ಐx' SJಾಂಕ: 09.08.2016 ರಂದು ೆC*ೆ 11.17 ಗಂPೆೆ ಾನ Jಾ)ಾಲಯದ Eಾx4ೆ ಒಳಪಡುವ ಕಗೕಪರ ೕ ಾ ಾ ಸರಹದು`, ಗುಳಕಮ8ೆ ಾDಮದ Eಾ' ;ಾ> 1 ರವೆ ಈ iೋ~ಾ ೋಪ ಾ ಅಂಕಣ 12 ರB ನಮೂS'ರುವ ಆ ೋxಯು ;ಾ> 1 ವJಾೆ ತನl Oೈv ನಂ 8904334554 Oೈv ಸಂ\ೆfಂದ Call Me kullu ಅಂತ ;ಾ> 1 ರವರ Oೈv ಸಂ\ೆ: 9483796999 ೆ ಸಂiೇಶ ಕಳu'ದ ನಂತರ ;ಾ> 1 ರವರು ಕ ೆ ಾಡ8ಾF Yೕನು ಗುಳಕಮ8ೆಯBರುವ ಆSತ ಅ8ಾ•PೆU ಕನL€•WV =PೆX ಕಂಪYಯ iಾEೆಯನುl uಂಪNೆಯSದ` ೆ Yನlನುl wೈನB ಇದು`ೊಂಡು ೊ8ೆ - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2281 CRL.P No. 11455 of 2024 ಾ0ಸು@ೆ4ೕJೆಂದು ೊ8ೆ ೆದೆ 9ಾ: SJಾಂಕ 10-08-2016 ರಂದು ಆ ೋx 2 ಮತು4 3 ರವರು ;ಾ> 1 ರವರ ಮJೆ ಬC ಬಂದು ;ಾ> 1ರವೆ Yೕನು ೋ‚KನB 9ಾ:ರುವ iಾEೆಯನುl uಂಪNೆSದ` ೆ Yನlನುl ಕತ4' TೕS 9ೆಣ ಾಡು@ೆ4ೕEೆ ಕುಳ*, Yನೆ ƒೕV ಾ0ದು` Jೆನxiೆಯ ಎಂದು ೆದೆ 9ಾ:ರುವದು ತY\ೆfಂದ ದೃಡಪ‚Qರುತ4iೆ. ಆದ`ಂದ ಆ ೋxಗಳ !ರುದq %ೕಲ„ಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ೕ@ಾ ಆ ೋxಸ8ಾದ iೋ~ಾ ೋಪ ಾ ಪ‚Q." 10. The offences are the ones punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. The petitioner is accused No.3. What is necessary for an allegation to become an offence under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC is the ingredients found in Section 503. 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." 11. The interpretation of Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2281 CRL.P No. 11455 of 2024 matter. The Apex Court in the case of MOHD. WAJID v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS1, while interpreting Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC, 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.” 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.” 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2281 CRL.P No. 11455 of 2024 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 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 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2281 CRL.P No. 11455 of 2024 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 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2281 CRL.P No. 11455 of 2024 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 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. The elucidation of law laid down by the Apex Court, if pitted against the charge or the complaint against the petitioner, it would run foul of what is held by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment. In that light, if criminal - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2281 CRL.P No. 11455 of 2024 proceedings are permitted to continue, it would lead to abuse of process of the law and miscarriage of justice. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.8580/2018 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore, qua the petitioner stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 CT:BHK