Allowed¶77

Sri Sarthak Chakrabarti v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2025CRL.P/13738/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR and proceedings; Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS; FIR Crime No.66/2019 Rajanukunte P.S. dated 04.06.2019; C.C.No.1193/2020 II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Rural Court Bengaluru; IPC s.353 assault / criminal force to deter public servant; ss.504, 506 r/w 34 IPC; complaint by Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector, RTO Yelahanka; abuse of process of law; K.Dhananjay vs. Cabinet Secretary & others, SLP (Crl.) No.5905/2022 relied upon; proceedings qua petitioners quashed; Karnataka HC June 2025.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; entire proceedings in C.C.No.1193/2020 pending before II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rural Court, Bengaluru, arising out of FIR in Crime No.66/2019 registered by respondent-Police, qua the petitioners, quashed. ¶77

Sri Sarthak Chakrabarti Vs State of Karnataka by — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶77

Issue for consideration

Whether the necessary ingredients of the offences under Sections 353, 504 and 506 r/w 34 IPC are forthcoming in the complaint, FIR, charge sheet material, statements of witnesses and documents against the petitioners. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

A perusal of the material on record comprising the complaint, FIR, charge sheet material, statements of witnesses and documents indicates that the necessary ingredients for the offence under Section 353 IPC are not forthcoming.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

There is no allegation of assault, nor any allegation that the petitioners stopped public servants from performing their duties by using criminal force, which are absolutely essential for commission of an offence under Section 353 IPC; the details of the alleged offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC are conspicuously absent from the record.

¶70

Key takeaways

Continuation of the proceedings qua the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.ratio¶73
The entire proceedings in C.C.No.1193/2020 pending before the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rural Court, Bengaluru, arising out of the FIR in Crime No.66/2019 registered by respondent-Police, qua the petitioners, are quashed.ratio¶77

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (S.R.Krishna Kumar J., 13-06-2025), CRL.P No. 13738 of 2024, filed u/s 482 CrPC (as u/s 528 BNSS): Petitioners sought quashing of the FIR in Crime No.66/2019 dated 04.06.2019 of Rajanukunte P.S., the underlying complaint, the charge sheet, the cognizance/summons order dated 03.02.2020 and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1193/2020 before the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rural Court, Bengaluru, for offences u/ss 353, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC on a complaint by respondent No.2, a Senior Motor Vehicle Inspector, RTO Yelahanka. Perusing the complaint, FIR, charge-sheet material, witness statements and documents, and relying on the Apex Court decision in K.Dhananjay vs. Cabinet Secretary & others (SLP (Crl.) No.5905/2022), the Court found the ingredients of s.353 IPC absent - no allegation of assault or of stopping public servants by criminal force - and the particulars of the ss.504/506 offences conspicuously absent; continuation would amount to abuse of process. Petition allowed; entire proceedings qua the petitioners quashed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:20404 CRL.P No. 13738 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13738 OF 2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI SARTHAK CHAKRABARTI S/O SRI. SANJAY CHAKRABARTI, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT C 1003, ASTER PARK, MAJOR SANDEEP UNNIKRISHNAN ROAD YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, NEAR MOTHER DAIRY BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560 065.

¶11

Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. SANJAY CHAKRABARTI S/O SRI. SAMAR CHAKRABARTI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT C 1003, ASTER PARK, MAJOR SANDEEP UNNIKRISHNAN ROAD YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, NEAR MOTHER DAIRY, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560 065.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. MAHESH Y.L, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20404 CRL.P No. 13738 of 2024

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAJANUKUNTE P.S. REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

SRI. RAJAKUMAR S/O SRI. SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SENIOR MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, RTO YELAHANKA, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 064.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR, IN CRIME NO.66/2019 DATED 04.06.2019, REGISTERED BY RAJANUKUNTE P.S.,/RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 353, 504, 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC 1860 AT ANNEXURE A.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISISON, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:20404 CRL.P No. 13738 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:

¶30

"a) To quash the FIR, in Crime No.66/2019, dated 04/06/2019, registered by Rajanukunte P.S./Respondent Police against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 353, 504 & 506 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at Annexure-'A' ;

¶31

b) To quash the Complaint filed by the de-facto complainant against the Petitioners, dated 04/06/2019, before Rajanukunte P.S/Respondent Police, in Crime No.66/2019, at Annexure-'B' ;

¶32

c) To quash the Chargesheet filed by the Rajanukunte P.S/Respondent Police against the Petitioners, on 17/11/2019, in Crime No.66/2019, in C.C.No.1193/2020, for the offences punishable under Section 353, 504 & 506 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at Annexure-'C' ;

¶33

d) To set aside the Order of Cognizance and issuance of summons dated 03.02.2020, passed by the Hon'ble II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rural Court, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.1193/2020, arising out of Crime No.66/2019, for the offences punishable under Section 353, 504 & 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the Petitioners at Annexure-'D' ;

¶34

e) To quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1193/2020, arising out of Crime No.66/2019, for the offences punishable under Section 353, 504 & 506 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) pending before the

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:20404 CRL.P No. 13738 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Hon'ble II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rural Court, Bengaluru at Annexure-'D' ;

¶39

f) Pass any other Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity."

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶41

learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

¶42

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 filed the impugned complaint dated 04.06.2019 against the petitioners, which was registered as an FIR in Cr.No.66/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. In pursuance of the same, the respondent-police conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet, which is currently pending in C.C.No.1193/2020 before the trial Court.

¶43

A perusal of the material on record comprising of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet material, statement of witnesses and documents will indicate that necessary ingredients for the offence under Section 353 of IPC are not forthcoming in the same and in the case of K.Dhananjay vs.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:20404 CRL.P No. 13738 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Cabinet Secretary & others (SLP (Crl.) No.5905/2022) ,

¶48

the Apex Court held as under:

¶49

"Leave granted.

¶50

The appellant was an employee of Indian Institute of Astrophysics (Autonomous Institute under the Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India) in Bangalore. Challenging his dismissal from service, he had filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore Bench.

¶51

Meanwhile, the appellant wanted to peruse certain documents, for which permission was given to him. While he was inspecting the documents in the office of Respondent No.5-Ms. A. Thomeena, Deputy Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal at Visveswarayya Kendriya Bhawan, Bangalore, it was alleged that the appellant assaulted the officers and therefore, a case was lodged against him under Sections 353/506 of the Indian Penal Code. His petition for quashing the proceedings has been dismissed and he is before this Court.

¶52

Vide order dated 27.08.2024, this Court issued notice to the respondents, including Respondent No. 5-Ms. A. Thomeena, but no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents despite due service.

¶53

We have now perused the copy of the complaint which was given by Respondent No.5-Ms. A. Thomeena, Deputy Registrar to the Inspector of Police, Ulsoor Police Station, Bangalore. The same reads as under :-

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:20404 CRL.P No. 13738 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

"Sir,

¶58

Today at 3.05 PM, we had one incident in our office. One Shri Dhananjay who had been a party to the proceedings before us had filed a complaint before the Chief Information Commission seeking certain documents. The CIC vide order No.CIC/CAD/MT/A/2018/611756/SD dated 01.07.2019 and asked us to give some documents. We had kept every document ready and asked him to come and get it and inspect the document which he wanted.

¶59

But apparently he wanted some other documents also which we felt had nothing to do with the order of the CIC. Therefore, being an official document, we had refused. Thereupon he started shouting and threatening us. At that time Smt. Rajashri, CPIO, Smt. Rekhashree, who is my PS, and Smt. Geetha who is an MTS were in the room. He threatening and shouted at them and disrupted the work of the office. Hearing the shouts and cries, people around gathered and I had immediately informed the police.

¶60

Kindly take necessary action."

¶61

It is on the basis of the above complaint that an FIR has been lodged against the appellant. However, the only allegation against the appellant in the said complaint is that he was shouting and threatening the staff. This itself will not amount to any assault.

¶62

Assault is defined under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code as under:-

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20404 CRL.P No. 13738 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

" 353 Assault - Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault."

¶66

We have reproduced the entire complaint hereinabove. On perusing the same, we find that none of the ingredients, as mentioned in Section 353 IPC, is reflected in the complaint letter. In other words, no offence under Section 353 IPC is made out in this case. The High Court, to our mind, has committed a mistake in not interfering in this case. This is a case which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, we allow this appeal and quash the entire proceedings initiated against the appellant.

¶67

With the above observations and directions, the appeal is allowed.

¶68

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of."

¶69

It is pertinent to note that there is no allegation of

¶70

assault nor allegation that the petitioners stopped the public servants from performing their duties by using criminal force, which are absolutely essential for commission of offence under Section 353 of IPC. So also the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, the details of which are conspicuously absent

¶71

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20404 CRL.P No. 13738 of 2024

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

from the material on record. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that continuation of the proceedings qua the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶74

In the result, the following:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

i) The criminal petition is allowed .

¶77

ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.1193/2020 pending before II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rural Court, Bengaluru, arising out of FIR in Crime No.66/2019 registered by respondent-Police, qua the petitioners, are hereby quashed.

¶78

SD/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶79

¶80

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 16

Sri Sarthak Chakrabarti v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sarthak Chakrabarti v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mohamed Shariff Vs the State

Mr Gopan Gopinath Pillai Vs the State of Karnataka

Swaroop Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramesh Chander Somani Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Karthikesh N C Vs Sri Lingaiah Setty B v

Shakil Ansari Sarkar @ Sarkar Vs State of Karnataka