- 1 -

NC: 2023:KHC:27313

CRL.P No. 12065 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12065 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

YATHISH KUMAR

S/O NAGARAJU S M

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

NEELAKANTANAHALLI VILLAGE

MADDUR TALUK

MANDYA DISTRICT-571 422.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAVINDRA P, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

MADDUR POLICE STATION

MANDYA DISTRICT

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT BUILDING

BENGALURU 560 001.

2.

MS. NAYANA H

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS

MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTICT

KARNATAKA 571 428.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R-1;

R-2 SERVED BUT UNRESPRESENTED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH

THE

CHARGE

SHEET

NO.1/2022

(ANNEXURE-J)

DATED 03.01.2022 BERING CR.NO.0322/2021 REGISTERED BY THE

MADDUR POLICE STATION/RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN PENDING

BEFORE THE HON'BLE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADDUR,

Digitally signed by B

K

MAHENDRAKUMAR

Location: High

Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

NC: 2023:KHC:27313

CRL.P No. 12065 of 2022

AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 186, 353, 504

OF IPC, 1860 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for the offences

punishable under Sections 186, 504, 341, 353 of IPC.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that, when CWs.1, 2

and 14 while discharging their official duties, at that time, the

accused came, abused CWs.1 and 2 in filthy language, and

restrained CW1 from proceeding further, and thereafter the

accused No.1 by showing his hand against CW1 threatened

that, he would not allow him to do work of others unless he

completes the work.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner -

accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for

the respondent No.1 - State.

4.

The petitioner has produced a communication dated

7.8.2021

issued

by

the

Additional

Secretary,

Revenue

Department addressed to the Principal Secretary, Revenue

Department, which indicates that, the petitioner - accused has

filed a complaint against the Additional Director of Land

Records for not fixing the boundries. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Manik Taneja & anr. -vs- State of

Karnataka and Anr. in Crl.Appeal No.141/2015 at paras-12 and

13 has held as follows:

- 3 -

NC: 2023:KHC:27313

CRL.P No. 12065 of 2022

"12. A reading of the above provision shows that the

essential ingredients of the offence under Section

353 IPC are that the person accused of the offence

should have assaulted the public servant or used

criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter

the public servant from discharging his duty as such

public servant. By perusing the materials available

on record, it appears that no force was used by the

appellants to commit such an offence. There is

absolutely nothing on record to show that the

appellants either assaulted the respondents or used

criminal force to prevent the second respondent from

discharging

his

official

duty.

Taking

the

uncontroverted allegations, in our view, that the

ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are

not made out.

13. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the

offence

of

criminal

intimidation.

"Criminal

intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC is as

under:-

"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 a