The registration of a crime lacking substantive evidence, and primarily serving as a retaliatory action, constitutes an abuse of the legal process, justifying dismissal of the charges against the accused.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner, a practicing advocate appearing in person is before the doors of this Court calling in question registration of a crime in crime No.223/2024 registered for offences punishable under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('the BNS ' for short), which is Section 353 of the earlier regime, the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 ('the IPC ' for short).

2. The facts in brief germane are as follows:

Respondent No.2 - the Tahsildar of Ajjampura Taluk is the complainant in the case at hand. The petitioner appears before the Tahsildar seeking mutation of katha in favour of the legal representatives of his clients. It transpires at that point in time there are certain altercations between the petitioner and the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar passes an order against which the petitioner is said to have preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority, the Assistant Commissioner sets aside the order of the Tahsildar and remits the matter back to the hands of the Tahsildar for consideration of afresh of the claim of the petitioner's clients. After the said remand, the petitioner registers a complaint before the Karnataka Lokayukta with certain evidence of conversation recorded in a compact disc alleging that respondent No.2 - Tahsildar had demanded for Rs.10,00,000/- as alleged bribe, not from the petitioner, but from one Shri Umesh.

3. The recording was not taken to its logical conclusion nor a crime was registered against the Tahsildar. In turn, the crime was registered against the petitioner for alleging that the petitioner has raised his voice or has abused the Tahsildar, who was performing his public duty at that point in time and therefore, the complaint becomes a crime in crime No.223/2024 for offence punishable under Section 132 of the BNS . It is at that juncture, the petitioner is at the doors of this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in crime No.223/2024.

4. The petitioner, in-person would contend that the Tahsildar has registered the subject complaint as a counter blast to the complaint so registered by the petitioner before the Lokayukta, which had not yet resulted in registration of a crime. He would submit that none of the ingredients as is necessary in law as laid down by the Apex Court in several judgments is met in the case at hand insofar is it concerns the offence under Section 132 of the BNS ( Section 353 of the IPC ).

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - complainant, the Tahsildar would submit that the petitioner has impact hurled abuse upon the Tahsildar at the time when he had visited him for preponement of the case after the disposal of the proceedings before the Tahsildar. He would submit that its a matter of investigation. The Court should not exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. interfere at this stage of proceedings.

6. Shri B.N. Jagadish, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor would also submit that the mater is still at the stage of investigation and therefore, this Court should not interfere with the said proceedings.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material available on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts link in the chain of events and the dates are all a matter of record. What drives the petitioner to the Lokayukta is the complaint so registered by him. The complaint reads as follows:

The narration in the complaint is that the Tahsildar has hurled abuses and has demanded money. The Lokayukta does not take any action. In turn, the Tahsildar registers a com