Vikram. G. P. v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2025CRL.P/6880/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC allows Crl.P. No. 6880/2024 (S.528 BNSS 2023) and quashes C.C.No.373/2024 (Ss.341, 504, 506 IPC; Crime No.7/2024, Arehalli PS, Hassan) qua petitioner: ingredients of Ss.339/503/504/506 IPC absent; complaint a counter blast to civil suit O.S.No.496/2023; relies on Madhanagopal (2022) 17 SCC 818 and Mohammad Wajid (2023 SCC OnLine SC 951); decided 19-09-2025 by M. Nagaprasanna, J.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.373/2024 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur, qua the petitioner. ¶140

Vikram. G. P. Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.373/2024 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur, qua the petitioner.

¶140

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.373/2024 (offences under Sections 504, 506 and 341 IPC) pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur should be quashed against the petitioner. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.373/2024, pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur, stand quashed qua the petitioner.

¶144

Ratio / Principle

None of the ingredients of wrongful restraint under Section 339 IPC being present, the offence under Section 341 IPC cannot be laid against the petitioner; it is not the complainant's case that the accused stopped the complainant by usage of force, and in the light of N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha the offence is loosely laid.

¶63

Key takeaways

The charge-sheet findings on Sections 504 and 506 IPC run foul of the Apex Court's exposition in Mohammad Wajid; none of the offences meets its basic ingredients, the complaint being registered as a counter blast to the pending civil suit, and permitting further proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law resulting in miscarriage of justice.ratio¶137
In terms of Sections 503 and 505 IPC (criminal intimidation and statements conducing public mischief), the alleged offences cannot be laid; stated in passing, Section 505 not being among the charged offences.obiter¶93

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (M. Nagaprasanna, J.), 19-09-2025, Crl.P. No. 6880 of 2024 under S.528 BNSS 2023: the petitioner, accused No.1, sought quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.373/2024 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur, for offences under Sections 504, 506 and 341 IPC, arising from Crime No.7/2024 of Arehalli Police Station, Hassan. The FIR had alleged Sections 323, 354, 506 and 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015, but on investigation the police charge-sheeted only Sections 341, 504 and 506 IPC. Background: civil suit O.S.No.496/2023 pending between the parties, with an injunction obtained by the petitioner on 27.11.2023. Held: (i) none of the ingredients of Section 339 IPC being present, the offence under Section 341 IPC cannot be laid, the offence being loosely laid, relying on N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha (2022) 17 SCC 818; (ii) for Sections 504 and 506 IPC, relying on Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, the charge-sheet findings run foul of the Apex Court's exposition; none of the offences meets its basic ingredients, the complaint being registered as a counter blast to the pending civil suit, and permitting further proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.373/2024 stand quashed qua the petitioner.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:37853 CRL.P No. 6880 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6880 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VIKRAM G.P. S/O PRAKASH G.R, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT MATHAVARA VILLAGE BIKKODU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 15.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY AREHALLI POLICE STATION, HASSAN DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 01.

¶14

RAJU

¶15

S/O NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT MATTAVARA VILLAGE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:37853 CRL.P No. 6880 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

BIKKODU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 15.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITHA 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.373/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504, 506, 341 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELUR BY THE AREHALLI POLICE.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner – accused No.1 is before this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.373/2024, pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Belur, for the offences under Sections 504, 506 and 341 of the IPC.

¶27

Heard Sri Pratheep K.C., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.N.Jagadeesh, learned Additional State

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:37853 CRL.P No. 6880 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served and remains unrepresented.

¶32

Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

¶33

Petitioner is accused No.1 and respondent No.2, the complainant. It transpires that, between the petitioner and respondent No.2 a civil suit in O.S.No.496/2023 is pending consideration and the petitioner has the benefit of an order of injunction granted by the concerned civil Court on 27.11.2023. After the grant of injunction, it transpires that respondent No.2 – complainant registers a complaint in Crime No.7/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015, making several allegations against the petitioner. Respondent No.1 – police, after investigation filed a charge sheet against the petitioner, not for the aforesaid offences, but for the offences under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of the IPC, dropping every one of the other offences. It is this that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:37853 CRL.P No. 6880 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there is not even an ingredient of the offences under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of the IPC. It is to wreck vengeance against the petitioner for having secured an order of injunction against respondent No.2, the criminal law is set into motion and therefore, he would submit that in the absence of any ingredient, further proceedings must not be permitted to be continued.

¶38

As observed hereinafter, respondent No.2 - complainant though served remains unrepresented.

¶39

Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in contending that the charge sheet has been filed by the police after investigation. It is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full blown trial and this Court in excise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should not interfere with the findings made in the charge sheet and leave it open to the petitioner to avail of such remedy as is available in law.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:37853 CRL.P No. 6880 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶44

submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

¶45

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. A suit between the parties being subsisting is a matter of record. On 27.11.2023, the concerned Court grants an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner, which does not go well with the complainant and seeks to register a complaint, for plethora of offences as afore-quoted. The police registered a crime in Crime No.7/2024 for the said offences. The police conduct investigation and the product of investigation as found in column No.17, which reads as follows:

¶46

“ 17. �ೇ�ನ ಸಂ�ಪ� �ಾ�ಾಂಶ

¶47

ಆgÉಹ��, ��ೕ� �ಾ�ಾ �ಾ�� ೆ �ೇ�ದ ಮ�ಾ�ವರ �ಾ"ಮದ �ೆ�ೆಏ�ಯ �ಾ� 01 ರವರ ಜ&ೕ'ನ ಹ(�ರದ ರ�ೆ�ಯ�) �ಾ� 01 ಮತು� �ಾ�-04 ರವರು ,-ಾಂಕ 16/12/2023 ರಂದು /ೆ��ೆ0 7-30 ಗಂ2ೆ ಸಮಯದ�) ನ3ೆದು�ೊಂಡು ಬರು(�ರು�ಾಗ ಈ 8ೋ9ಾ�ೋಪ�ಾ ಪ:;ಯ �ಾಲಂ ನಂಬ= 12ರ°è ಕಂಡ ಆ�ೋ� 01 ರವರು �ಾ� 01 ರವರನು> ಆಡ?ಗ:; ಇ�) ಏ�ೆ ಬರು(�,Aೕ�ಾ ನನ> ಜ&ೕ'ನ ತಂ( /ೇ�ಯನು> Bಾರು Cತು� DಾCರು�ಾ � ೆಂದು �ೇ�8ಾಗ �ಾ�-01 ರವರು ನನ�ೆ �ೊ(�ಲ)�ೆಂದು Dೇ�8ಾಗ ಆ�ೋ� 01ರವರು ನನ> ಜ&ೕ'ನ EೕFೆ Bಾರು (ರು�ಾಡ/ೇG ಇದು ನನ> Hಾಗ ಎಂದು Dೇ�ದA�ೆJ �ಾ� 01 ರವರು ಇದು ಸ�ಾK� �ಾವKಜ'ಕ 8ಾ� ನಮ�ೆ (ರು�ಾಡವ ಹಕುJ ಇ8ೇ ಎಂದು Dೇ�8ಾಗ ಆ�ೋ�ಯು �ಾ� 01 ರವರನು> ಮುಂ8ೆ Dೋಗದಂ�ೆ ತ3ೆದು /ೋ�ಮಗ-ೇ ಸೂLೆಮಗ-ೆ ಅಂ�ಾ ಅ�ಾಚ� ಶಬAಗ�ಂದ /ೈದು ಗFಾ2ೆ PಾG �ಾ� -01 ರವರ Dೆಂಡ( �ಾ� -04 ರವರನು> ಸಹ ಸೂLೆಮುಂ3ೆ ಅಂ�ಾ

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:37853 CRL.P No. 6880 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

ಅ�ಾಚ� ಶಬAಗ�ಂದ /ೈದು ಗFಾ2ೆ PಾG ನಂತರ ಆ�ೋ� 01 ರವರು ನನ> ಜ&ೕ'ನ�) 'ೕವQಗಳS ಓ3ಾGದ�ೇ 'ಮUನು> Vೕವ ಸWತ XಡುವQ,ಲ)�ೆಂದು �ಾ� 01 ಮತು� �ಾ� -04 ರವ��ೆ �ೊFೆ /ೆದ��ೆ DಾCರು�ಾ� ೆ ಂದು ೆೆೆ ತ'YೆZಂದ ದೃಡಪಟ; Eೕ�ೆ�ೆ ಕಲಂ 341,504,506 ಐ�� ೕ�ಾ� 8ೋ9ಾ�ೋಪ�ಾಪ nÖ.

¶52

ತ'Yಾ ಸಮಯದ°è ಆ�ೋ� 02,03,04 ರವರು BಾವQ8ೇ ಕೃತ�ದ°è /ಾ_Bಾಗ8ೇ ಇರುವQದು ತ'YೆZಂದ ದೃಡಪಟ; Eೕ�ೆ�ೆ ಆ�ೋ� 02,03,04 ರವರನು> ಆ�ೋಪ ಪ:;Zಂದ �ೈX:;ರುತ�8ೆ Dಾಗೂ ತ'Yಾ ಸಮಯದ�) ಆ�ೋ� 01 ರವರು BಾವQ8ೇ Hಾ('ಂದ-ೆ ಮತು� �ಾ� 04 ರವ��ೆ ಬ2ೆ; ಹ�ದು WGದು ಎLೆ8ಾಡ,ರುವQದು �ಾ�8ಾರರ Dೇ��ೆZಂದ Dಾಗೂ ತ'YೆZಂದ ದೃಡಪಟ; Eೕ�ೆ�ೆ ಕಲಂ 3(1)(ಆ=) (J¸ï), 3(2)(«J)J¸ï¹/J¸ïn DPïmï ºÁU À Æ P À ®A 354, 323, 34 L¦¹ P É Ê©lÄÖ 341, 504, 506 L¦¹Ai À Ä£ À Äß ¸ É Ãj¹g À Äv À Ûz É . ”

¶53

( Emphasis added)

¶54

A perusal at the charge sheet would indicate that the offences initially alleged were all bald and did not have any substance in it. What remain are the offences under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

¶55

Section 341 of the IPC deals with wrongful restraint. Wrongful restraint is defined in Section 339 of the IPC. For an offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC. The ingredients as found in Section 339 of the IPC is required to be present to constitute the offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC. Section 339 of the IPC reads as follows:

¶56

“Section 339: Wrongful restraint;

¶57

Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:37853 CRL.P No. 6880 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.

¶62

Exception.—The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section.”

¶63

In the light of the fact that none of the ingredients as obtaining under Section 339 of the IPC being present in the case at hand, offence under Section 341 of the IPC cannot be laid against the petitioner, as it is not the case of the complainant that the accused has stopped the complainant by usage of force. If the complainant has not been able to move any way or to any direction, on restraint by the accused, it would then become an offence under Section 341 of the IPC.

¶64

The Apex Court in the case of N. S. MADHANAGOPAL V. K. LALITHA reported in (2022) 17 SCC 818 has held as

¶65

follows:-

¶66

“10. Section 341IPC talks about punishment for wrongful restraint. Section 341 reads thus:

¶67

“ 341. Punishment for wrongful restraint .— Whoever wrongfully restrains any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extent to five hundred rupees, or with both.”

¶68

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:37853 CRL.P No. 6880 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

11. The complaint also fails to disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of wrongful restraint. In order to attract application of Section 341 which provides for punishment for wrongful restraint, it has to be proved : ( i ) that there was obstruction by the accused; ( ii ) such obstruction prevented a person from proceeding in a direction to which he had a right to proceed; and ( iii ) the accused caused such obstruction voluntarily. The obstructor must intend or know or would have reason to believe that the means adopted would cause obstruction to the complainant.

¶71

12. The averments made in the complaint according to us are not sufficient to even constitute the offence of wrongful restraint. In the overall view of the case, we are convinced that no case is made out against the appellants herein as alleged by the complainant.”

¶72

(Emphasis supplied)

¶73

In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court, offence under Section 341 of the IPC is loosely laid against the petitioner. What remains are the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC.

¶74

For an offence under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC, the ingredients are found in Section 503 of the IPC, which reads as follows:

¶75

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:37853 CRL.P No. 6880 of 2024

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

“Section 503 :- Criminal intimidation

¶79

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 any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.”

¶80

Section 505 :- Statements conducing public mischief

¶81

1. Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report

¶82

(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or

¶83

(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility; or

¶84

(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

¶85

(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill will between classes,

¶86

Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or

¶87

10 -

¶88

NC: 2025:KHC:37853 CRL.P No. 6880 of 2024

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

¶91

(3) Offence under sub-section (2) committed in place of worship, etc.

¶92

Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (2) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.”

¶93

In terms of Sections 503 and 505 of the IPC - criminal intimidation and statements conducing public mischief, the alleged offences cannot be laid. The other offence is the one punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. The interpretation of these offences also need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of MOHAMMAD WAJID v. STATE OF U.P .¹ , has held as follows:

¶94

“….

¶95

SECTIONS 503, 504 AND 506 OF THE IPC

¶96

1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951

¶97

11 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC:37853 CRL.P No. 6880 of 2024

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

24. Chapter XXII of the IPC relates to Criminal Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance. Section 503 reads thus:—

¶101

“ Section 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 any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

¶102

Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.

¶103

Illustration

¶104

A, for the purpose of inducing B to resist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.”

¶105

25. Section 504 reads thus:—

¶106

“ Section 504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace .—Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

¶107

26. Section 506 reads thus:—

¶108

“ Section 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation. —Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

¶109

If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. —And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with

¶110

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:37853 CRL.P No. 6880 of 2024

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

¶113

27. An offence under Section 503 has following

¶114

essentials:—

¶115

1) Threatening a person with any injury;

¶116

(i) to his person, reputation or property; or

¶117

(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.

¶118

2) The threat must be with intent;

¶119

(i) to cause alarm to that person; or

¶120

(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or

¶121

(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

¶122

28. Section 504 of the IPC contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive language is used intentionally and is of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of events lead the person insulted to break the peace or to commit an offence under the law, the case is not taken away from the purview of the Section merely because the insulted person did not actually break the peace or commit any offence having exercised selfcontrol or having been subjected to abject terror by the offender. In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline.

¶123

13 -

¶124

NC: 2025:KHC:37853 CRL.P No. 6880 of 2024

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant.

¶127

29. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant. In King Emperor v. ChunnibhaiDayabhai , (1902) 4 Bom LR 78, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:—

¶128

“To constitute an offence under Section 504, I.P.C. it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the other party to lose his temper and say or do something violent. Public peace can be broken by angry words as well as deeds.”

¶129

(Emphasis supplied)

¶130

30. A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant.

¶131

31. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not under Section 504 of the IPC. The allegations with respect to the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC can also be looked at from a different perspective. In the FIR, all that the first informant has stated is that abusive language was used

¶132

14 -

¶133

NC: 2025:KHC:37853 CRL.P No. 6880 of 2024

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

by the accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the FIR. One of the essential elements, as discussed above, constituting an offence under Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present.”

¶136

(Emphasis supplied)

¶137

In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court as aforequoted, the ingredients for the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC, if the findings made in the charge sheet is noticed, it would run foul of what the Apex Court has held. As none of the offences meeting their basic ingredients and the entire issues bringing in from a civil suit pending between the parties and the complaint being registered as a counter blast to the pending civil suit, permitting further proceedings against the petitioner, would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.

¶138