IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1468 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

DR. K.S. RAJA SUDHEER,

S/O LATE SIDDAPPA K.G.,

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

R/AT NO.9, 1^ST FLOOR, 4^TH MAIN,

2^ND CROSS, AECS LAYOUT,

RMV 2^ND STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR,

BENGALURU - 560 094.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. J.S. HALASHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

R/BY HENNUR POLICE STATION,

NOW R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.

K.S. GURU PRAKASH,

S/O LATE K.G. SIDDAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

R/O H.NO.7-7-69, S.V.D ROAD,

HINDUPUR - 515 201.

ANANTHAPUR TALUK,

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R1;

R-2 - SERVED)

2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS

HON9BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR IN

CR.NO.408/2017 DATED 22.11.2017 REGISTERED WITH 1^ST

RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCS P/U/S 504, 506, 420

OF IPC, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XI

A.C.M.M.,

MAYO

HALL,

BANGALORE

IN

SO

FAR

AS

PETITIONER

IS

CONCERNED,

WHICH

IS

MARKED

AS

ANNEXURE-B.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 alleging that

the petitioner 3 accused abused him in filthy language

and also threatened him with dire consequences when he

requested the petitioner 3 accused to execute the sale

deed in favour of four persons after having executed the

agreement of sale. The police registered the FIR for the

offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 420 of

IPC. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

2.

I have considered the submissions made by

learned counsel for the parties.

3

3.

Even accepting the allegations made in the

FIR, on the face of it, it would not constitute the

commission of offence as alleged against the petitioner 3

accused.

To constitute the offence punishable under

Section 420 of IPC, there must be a specific allegation

that there was a dishonest intention to cheat the

complainant. In the present case, there is no allegation

that the respondent No.2 has been cheated by the

petitioner 3 accused except alleging that petitioner 3

accused has not executed the sale deed infavour of four

persons, in whose favour the agreement of sale is

executed. In the absence any personal injury or loss

caused to respondent No.2, the registration of FIR for the

aforesaid offences is without any substance.

4.

To constitute the offence punishable under

Section 504 of IPC, intentional insults must be of such a

degree that has caused breach of public peace or

commission of any other offence. In the present case,

the alleged abusive language used by the petitioner 3

4

accused has not caused breach of public peace or

commission of any other offence.

5.

In view of the preceding analysis, the

registration of FIR in the absence of essential ingredients

so as to constitute the commission of offence alleged

against

the

petitioner

3

accused

is

without

any

substance. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i.

Criminal Petition is allowed.

ii.

The impugned FIR in Crime No.408/2017

registered by the Hennur Police Station

insofar it relates to Accused No.1 is hereby

quashed.

In view of disposal of the main petition, pending

application, if any, does not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GRD