SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 2557

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
Ramesh S/o Krishnappa Karoshi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100090 OF 2024



Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R-1 (VC)
:

Mere raising of voice does not constitute assault or criminal intimidation under IPC; insufficient allegations lead to quashing of proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 353 and 506 - Criminal proceedings against a home guard for raising his voice against a police inspector - Allegations insufficient to constitute assault or criminal intimidation as defined under IPC - No evidence of criminal force or intimidation found. (Paras 8-10)

(B) Abuse of process of law - The court emphasized that without sufficient allegations meeting the statutory definitions, continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of process. (Paras 9-10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a home guard, was accused of raising his voice and demanding documents from a police inspector, leading to a complaint and subsequent charge sheet.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations did not meet the necessary legal criteria for the offences charged under Sections 353 and 506 of the IPC.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be tried for offences under Sections 353 and 506 of the IPC based on the allegations made.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere raising of voice does not constitute assault or criminal intimidation, and thus, the charges were quashed.

Result: Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.1190 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the IPC .

2. Heard Sri Prashant S Kadadevar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

The 2nd respondent, Police Inspector of Jamkhandi Town police station is the complainant. A complaint comes to be registered on 21-2-2023 alleging that the petitioner who was working as a home guard has raised his voice demanding certain documents from the hands of the complainant. Based upon such act of raising of voice, the complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner in crime No.24 of 2023 for the afore-quoted offences. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioner and the concerned Court registers it as C.C.No.1190 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the IPC . The registration of the criminal case is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in this subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Prashant S Kadadevar would submit that except raising of the voice, there is no other allegation against the petitioner. The incident of raising of voice is blown out of proportion by the police is his submission.

5. The 2nd respondent-complainant though served has remained unrepresented even today.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader representing the State would however refute the submission of the petitioner contending that there are about 5 eyewitnesses to the incident and therefore, it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean.

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

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner working as a home guard is a matter of record. The 2nd respondent complainant working as a Head Constable in the Jamkhandi town police station at the relevant point in time, is also a matter of record. The entire issue has sprung from an incident that has happened on 21-2-2023 which becomes the complaint registered by the 2nd respondent. The complaint reads as follows:

The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner has raised his voice and hurled abuses against the 2nd respondent complainant. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioner. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column no.17 reads as follows:

The issue s 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.

9. The summary of the findings of the charge sheet, as also, the statement of all the witnesses are unequivocal that the only allegation against the petitioner is speaking to the 2nd respondent/complainant by raising his voice. This would, in the considered view of this Court, not meet the ingredients that are necessary for an offence to become punishable under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top