The absence of specific abusive language in a complaint under Section 504 IPC negates the claim of intentional insult necessary for criminal intimidation.

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 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:

The petitioner is accused No.3, the 2^nd 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.

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:

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:

10. The offences are