Smt Jyothi R R v. State by Extention Police

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2026CRL.P/14664/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings; BNS Section 115(2) voluntarily causing hurt — actual hurt essential; BNS Sections 351(2) and 352 criminal intimidation ingredients absent; abuse of process of law; miscarriage of justice; Section 528 BNSS petition; Section 74 BNS offence dropped in charge sheet; Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka (2025) 3 SCC 612; Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023) 20 SCC 219; cross-cases between spouses; complainant stranger to proceedings; Karnataka High Court; CRL.P No. 14664 of 2025; CNR KAHC010691482025.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.6030 of 2025 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere stand quashed qua the petitioners; consequently I.A.No.1 of 2025 also stands disposed. ¶159

Smt Jyothi R R Vs State by Extention Police — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Proceedings in C.C.No.6030 of 2025 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere stand quashed qua the petitioners; consequently I.A.No.1 of 2025 also stands disposed.

¶159

Issue for consideration

Whether the complaint, the summary of the charge sheet and the witness statements disclose the ingredients of the offences of hurt and criminal intimidation punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the BNS against the petitioners. +1 more

¶77

Court's answer

A perusal of the complaint, the summary of the charge sheet and the witness statements does not indicate the ingredients of the offences of hurt or criminal intimidation punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the BNS; the offences are loosely laid against the petitioners.

¶77

Ratio / Principle

The 2nd respondent/complainant is admittedly a stranger to the proceedings, which essentially concern the matrimonial dispute between the husband and the wife (1st petitioner).

¶58

Key takeaways

For an offence under Section 323 of the IPC, corresponding to Section 115(2) of the BNS, to be made out, it is essential that actual hurt must be caused, as held by the Apex Court in Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka.ratio¶98
Since no offence is made out, permitting further proceedings against the petitioners would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.ratio¶149
The proceedings in C.C.No.6030 of 2025 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere stand quashed qua the petitioners.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (M. Nagaprasanna, J.), CRL.P No. 14664 of 2025, decided 15-07-2026 — Petition under S. 528 BNSS by accused Nos.1 and 2 (mother and daughter) to quash the order of cognizance dated 14.08.2025 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Davanagere in C.C.No.6030/2025 (Crime No.56/2025) for offences under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 126(2) r/w 3(5) BNS. The matter arises out of a matrimonial conflict between the 1st petitioner and her husband/son, who had faced three earlier crimes at her instance (C.C.Nos.6744/2023, 2653/2024, 5512/2025); the present case was allegedly registered in retaliation through the 2nd respondent/complainant, a stranger to the proceedings, on an allegation of photographing/stalking and an altercation. The charge sheet dropped the Section 74 BNS offence. Held: a perusal of the complaint, the column-17 summary of the charge sheet and the witness statements does not disclose the ingredients of hurt (S.115(2)) or criminal intimidation (Ss.351(2), 352) BNS, and the offences are loosely laid; relying on Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka, (2025) 3 SCC 612 (S.323 IPC requires actual hurt) and Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P., (2023) 20 SCC 219 (ingredients of Ss.503/504/506 IPC), further proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law and a miscarriage of justice. Criminal petition allowed; proceedings quashed qua the petitioners; I.A.No.1/2025 disposed.

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:36190 CRL.P No. 14664 of 2025

¶4

CNR: KAHC010691482025

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14664 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT.JYOTHI R.R., AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, D/O LATE SRI RAMANAND R., NO.337/1A, 14^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, MCC B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE – 577 004 MOBILE NO. 9945922688

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K

¶12

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SMT. NIKHILA DEERAJ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O SRI DHEERAJ VEMALA, NO.337/1A, 14^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, MCC B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE – 577 004.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI BALARAM M.L., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE BY EXTENTION POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶18

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:36190 CRL.P No. 14664 of 2025

¶21

CNR: KAHC010691482025

¶22

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.

¶23

MS.M.K.KAVYA D/O SRI KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, NO.3371/A2B2, 14^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, MCC B BLOCK, DAVANAGERE – 577 004.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI RAMAKRISHNA N., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶26

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE TAKEN BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DAVANAGERE, DATED 14.08.2025 IN CC.NO.6030/2025, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A; b) CONSEQUENTLY TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.6030/2025, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT DAVANAGERE; c) TO ALLOW THE PETITION.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶28

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:36190 CRL.P No. 14664 of 2025

¶32

CNR: KAHC010691482025

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 stand at the doors of this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.6030 of 2025 (Crime No.56 of 2025) for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 126(2) r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS.

¶36

2. Heard Sri Balaram M. L., learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Smt Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Ramakrishna N., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶37

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

¶38

The dispute principally is between these petitioners and one Darshan and Nandan, the husband and the son of the 1^st petitioner respectively. The fulcrum of the subject lis emerges on 21-02-2023 when the 1^st petitioner seeks to register a crime against the husband and son in Crime No.53 of 2023 and the

¶39

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:36190 CRL.P No. 14664 of 2025

¶42

CNR: KAHC010691482025

¶43

police after investigation have filed charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 498A, 506 and 34 of the IPC in C.C.No.6744 of 2023. Two other crimes are also registered by the 1^st petitioner against her husband and son in Crime No.142 of 2023 and 76 of 2024, wherein in both the cases police have filed the charge sheet in C.C.Nos.2653 of 2024 and 5512 of 2025 respectively. It is the allegation of the petitioners that to retaliate, her husband and son through the 2^nd respondent have registered a case in Crime No.56 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 352, 74 r/w 3(5) of the BNS. The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.6030 of 2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352 r/w 3(5) of the BNS. In the charge sheet the offence punishable under Section 74 of the BNS comes to be dropped. The filing of the charge sheet has driven these petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶44

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the complainant has registered

¶45

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:36190 CRL.P No. 14664 of 2025

¶48

CNR: KAHC010691482025

¶49

a crime on an incident that has never happened. The allegation is that these petitioners go near the house of the complainant and take a photograph of her from a distance, which is alleged as stalking and an altercation between the two happened at the time of taking those pictures, therefore the offence under Section 115 of the BNS has emerged. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the husband of the 1^st petitioner is instrumental in getting this complaint registered, as the complainant is an intern in the office of the advocate who represents the husband of the 1^st petitioner. He would submit that this is a story woven to malign the name of these petitioners and to harass them.

¶50

5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd

¶51

respondent/complainant would submit that the petitioners in fact came near the house of the complainant, a stranger to these proceedings and took a picture. Therefore, it amounts to stalking and also alleged that the clothes of the complainant were torn in the presence of her boyfriend. Therefore, it amounts to offence under Section 74 of the BNS and would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶52

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:36190 CRL.P No. 14664 of 2025

¶55

CNR: KAHC010691482025

¶56

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/complainant and seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶57

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶58

8. The issue lies in a narrow compass. The 2^nd respondent/complainant admittedly is a stranger to the proceedings. The proceedings are between the husband and the wife/1^st petitioner. The issue, in the case at hand, springs from a complaint so registered by the complainant. Complaint so registered by the 2^nd respondent/complainant reads as follows:

¶59

“ Eª À jU É

¶60

ª À iÁ£ À å ¸ À ¨ï E£ïì¥ É P À Ögï g À ª À gÄ À §qÁª À u É ¥ É ÆÃ°Ã¸ï oÁu É zÁª À tU É g É .

¶61

EAz À

¶62

PÁªÀå H.K D/o PÀj§¸À¥Àà M.V., PÁ£ À Æ£ À Ä ¥ À z À « «zÁåyð R/o #3371/A2B2

¶63

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:36190 CRL.P No. 14664 of 2025

¶66

CNR: KAHC010691482025

¶67

14^th Main, 3^rd Cross M.C.C. ‘ B’ Block Kuvempu Nagar Davangere 8618510050

¶68

«µÀAiÀÄ: ಅನ¢üÃಕೃತ�ಾ� ನನ� �ೕ�ೋಗಳನು� �ೆ�ೆದು�ೊಂಡು ಅ�ಾಚ� ಶಬ�ಗ�ಂದ �ಂ !, ಹ¯Éè $ಾ% ನನ� ಉlÖ §mÉÖಗಳನು� ಎ(ೆ)ಾ% ಹ*ದು ನನ� $ಾನಭಂಗ $ಾ%ದವರ .ರುದ/ �ಾನೂನು *ೕ0ಯ ಕ2ಮ �ೈ�ೊಳ56ವ ಬ�ೆ7

¶69

ª À iÁ£ À åg É Ã,

¶70

ಈ 9ೕಲ;ಂಡ .ಷಯ�ೆ; ಸಂಬಂ>!ದಂ�ೆ, �?ೆ� ಸಂ@ೆ ಅಂದAೆ :15/03/2025ರ ಸಂ@ೆ ಸಮಯ ಸು$ಾರು ಸಂ@ೆ 7:15 PÉÌ ನನ� ಮ?ೆಯ ಹ0Cರ ಇರು�ಾ�ೆ7 ನನ� ಮ?ೆಯ ಹ0Cರ ಇರುವ @ೊ�ೕ0 RR Eಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಮಗ(ಾದ �F¯Á ರವರುಗಳ5 ಏ�ಾಏQÃ ಬಂದು, ?ಾನು ನನ� �ಾHೇಜು ಸಹJಾK �ಾHೇಜು .Lಾರ�ಾ� $ಾತ?ಾ%�ೊಂಡು �ಂ0ರು�ಾಗ 9ೕHೆ Eೇ�ರುವವರು ನನ� �ೕ�ೋವನು� ನನ�ೆ �ೇಳ)ೆ �ೆ�ೆದು ನಂತರ ನನ�ೆ ಅ�ಾಚ� ಶಬ�ಗ�ಂದ �ಂ ಸು�ಾC ನಡು ರMೆCಯNO �ಾರಣ EಲOzÉÃ, ನನ� 9ೕHೆ ಅವರ �ೈ�ಾಲುಗ½AzÀ ಹHೆOೕ $ಾ% ?ಾನು ಉlÖ ಬ�ೆQಗಳನು� ಅವರ �ೈಗ�ಂದ ಎಳ)ಾ% ಹದು ನಡು ರMೆCಯNO ನನ� $ಾನವನು� ಭಂಗ $ಾ%ರು�ಾCAೆ Eಾ�ಾ� ?ಾನು ಅವರು ನನ�ೆ �ೊಟQ SಂMೆಯನು� �ಾಳHಾರ)ೆ ಕೂ�ಾ%ದ � ೆ; ನನ�ೆ Jಾ2ಣ Tೆದ�ೆ Eಾ�ೆ, �ನ�ನು� ಮು�!Uಡು�ೆCೕ�ೆ ಎಂದು ಸದ* ವ�VCಗಳ5 Eೇಳ5�ಾC VರುLಾ% Jಾ2ಣ Tೆದ*�ೆ EಾV Eೋ�ರು�ಾCAೆ ಸದಯವರು ಇದಕೂ; ಮುಂLೆ ನನ� 9ೕHೆ ಅವರ �ಾW Honda Jazz KA17 N 3635 �ಾ%ಯನು� ನನ� 9ೕHೆ ಹ0Cಸಲು ಪ2ಯ0�!ರು�ಾCAೆ Eಾಗೂ ಐ)ಾರು Tಾ ಅ�ಾಚ� ಶಬ�ಗ�ಂದ �ಂ ! Jಾ2ಣ Tೆದ*�ೆ ಒ%[ದು� ಇರುತC)ೆ. ಸದAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ «£ÁPÁgÀt AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¸ÀPÁgÀtUÀ½®èzÉÃ ನನ� 9ೕHೆ �ೇeÉÆÃವ)ೆ, $ಾನಭಂಗ Eಾಗೂ Jಾ2ಣ Tೆದ�ೆ Eಾಕು0Cರುವ]ದು Eಾಗೂ ನನ� ಮ?ೆತನದ �ೌರವವನು� Eಾಳ5 $ಾಡು0Cರುವವರ .ರುದ/ �ಾನೂನು *ೕvÁå ಕ2ಮ ಜರು�!, ಸೂಕC Jಾ2ಣ ರ_ೆ ಅವ*ಂದ ನನ�ೆ �ೕಡTೇಕು Eಾಗೂ �ನ� ಸಂ@ೆ ಅಂದAೆ ?ಾಂಕ 15/3/2025ರ ಸಂ@ೆ ಸದ* ವ�VCಗಳ5 ಅವರ aTೈb �ಂದ �ೆ�ೆ ರುವ ನನ� �ೕ�ೋ Eಾಗೂ .%cೕಗಳನು� ದುಬdಳ�ೆ $ಾ%�ೊಳ56ವ ಅನು$ಾನ.ದು� ಅವ]ಗಳನು� ಕೂಡHೇ ಅವರ aTೈb Eಾಗೂ eೇW ಆ�ರುವ aTೈb ಅಥ�ಾ ಕಂಪh�ಟW ಗ�ಂದ %Nೕi $ಾ%ಸTೇ�ಾ� ತಮjNO Jಾ2kd!�ೊಳ560Cದು� Eಾಗೂ ಸದ*ಯವರ .ರುದ/ ಸ*lಾದ �ಾನೂನು *ೕvÁå ಕ2ಮ �ೈ�ೊಳ6Tೇ�ೆಂದು �ೇಳ5�ೊಳ560C)ೆ�ೕ?ೆ Eಾಗೂ ಈ ಘಟ?ೆಯನು� ಮ?ೆಯNO .Lಾರ $ಾ% EAದು ತಡ�ಾ� nಾೆ�ೆ ಬಂದು ದೂರನು� �ೕಡು0C)ೆ�ೕ?ೆ.”

¶71

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:36190 CRL.P No. 14664 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

CNR: KAHC010691482025

¶74

The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. In the charge sheet, the offence punishable under Section 74 of the BNS comes to be dropped. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column no.17 reads as follows:

¶75

“17. �ೇ!ನ ಸಂpಪC MಾAಾಂಶ

¶76

?ಾಂಕ:15-03-2025 ರಂದು ಸಂ@ೆ 07-15 ಗಂ�ೆಯNO )ಾವಣ�ೆAೆ ಬqಾವೆ rNೕs nಾೆ ಸರಹ �ನ 14?ೇ 9ೕt, 3?ೇ �ಾ2s ನNOರುವ qೋW ನಂಬW 3371/14 ನ ಮ?ೆಯ ಮುಂuಾಗದ ರMೆCಯNO )ೋvಾAೋಪಣ ಪwQ �ಾಲಂ-14 ರNO, ನಮೂ>!ದ Mಾp-1 ಮತುC Mಾp-4 ರವರು $ಾತ?ಾಡು0Cರು�ಾಗ �ಾಲಂ ನಂಬW 12 ರNO ನಮೂ !ದ ಆAೋx-1 ರವರು rೕ�ೋ �ೆ�ೆ ದ � ೆ; Mಾp-1 ರವರು ಆAೋx-1 ರವ*�ೆ lಾ�ೆ rೕ�ೋ �ೆ�ೆ * ಅಂತ �ೇ�ದ�ೆ; ಆAೋx-1 ಮತುC ಆAೋx-2 ರವರು Mಾp-1 ರವ*�ೆ ಅ�ಾಚ� ಶಬ�ಗ�ಂದ Tೈದು, ರMೆCಯNO ತqೆದು �NO!�ೊಂಡು �ೈಗ�ಂದ Mಾp-1 ರವರ ಕJಾಳ�ೆ;, 9ೖ-�ೈ�ೆ Eೊqೆದು Mಾ$ಾನ� ಸyರೂಪದ �ಾಯವನು�ಂlÄ $ಾ%, Jಾ2ಣ Tೆದ*�ೆ EಾVರುವ]ದು ಇದುವAೆಗೂ �ೈ�ೊಂಡ ತ�zೆ{ಂದ ಆAೋಪ MಾUೕ�ಾದ 9ೕAೆ�ೆ ಆAೋxತರ .ರುದ/ 9ೕಲ;ಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ಅನyಯ )ೋvಾAೋಪಣ ಪwQ ಸNO!ರುತC)ೆ .”

¶77

The offences alleged are the ones punishable for hurt and criminal intimidation. A perusal at the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet or even the statements recorded by the witnesses would not indicate the ingredients of offence of hurt or criminal intimidation punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the BNS. The offences are loosely laid against the petitioners.

¶78

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:36190 CRL.P No. 14664 of 2025

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

CNR: KAHC010691482025

¶81

9. At this juncture, it becomes apposite to notice the law laid down by the Apex Court, interpreting the aforesaid provisions.

¶82

9.1. Section 115(2) of the BNS punishes the offence of voluntarily causing hurt, which corresponds to Section 323 of the IPC. The Apex Court in the case of MADHUSHREE DATTA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA¹ , while discussing the ingredients

¶83

of the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC, observes as follows:

¶84

"…… …… ……

¶85

Section 323IPC

¶86

17. To determine what are the ingredients of the offence under Section 323IPC, it is important to read Sections 319, 321 and 323 together.

¶87

18. What emerges on a conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions is that, for a conviction under Section 323IPC, there must be a voluntary act of causing hurt i.e. bodily pain, disease, or infirmity, to another person. Therefore, it is essential that actual hurt is caused.

¶88

19. Turning to the facts of the case, the complaint merely states that the complainant was forcibly ejected from the Company's office by security personnel, who allegedly attempted to assault, physically harass, and

¶89

1 (2025) 3 SCC 612

¶90

10 -

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

NC: 2026:KHC:36190 CRL.P No. 14664 of 2025

¶93

CNR: KAHC010691482025

¶94

threaten her with dire consequences. Therefore, the complaint does not directly attribute any voluntary act of causing hurt to the complainant by any of the two accused.

¶95

20. Furthermore, the charge-sheet reiterates the similar version set forth in the complaint, stating that the complainant was forcibly thrown out of the office by the security personnel. While the actions of the security personnel could potentially constitute an offence of causing hurt, they are neither named in the complaint nor figure as accused in the charge-sheet. Having said that, the appellants cannot be said to have foreseen or anticipated the actions of the security personnel in such a manner that would render them co-perpetrators of the offence. Hence, there is no basis for the prosecution to set forth the concept of liability of the employer or for the overt acts of its employees in this matter.

¶96

21. In the light of the abovementioned discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the ingredients of offence under Section 323IPC have not been made out, prima facie, either in the complaint or the charge-sheet.

¶97

The Apex Court holds that for an offence under Section 323 of

¶98

the IPC to be made out, it is essential that actual hurt must be caused.

¶99

9.2. Sections 351(2) and 352 of the BNS deal with the offence of criminal intimidation. The corresponding provisions under the earlier regime are Sections 503 and 506 of the IPC. The Apex Court in the case of MOHD. WAJID v. STATE OF

¶100

11 -

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

NC: 2026:KHC:36190 CRL.P No. 14664 of 2025

¶103

CNR: KAHC010691482025

¶104

U.P.² , while interpreting Section 503, 504 and 506 of the IPC observes as follows:

¶105

“….

¶106

Sections 503, 504 and 506 IPC

¶107

25. Chapter XXII IPC relates to criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance. Section 503 reads thus:

¶108

“ 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.

¶109

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

¶110

Illustration

¶111

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

¶112

26. Section 504 reads thus:

¶113

“ 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.”

¶114

27. Section 506 reads thus:

¶115

2 (2023) 20 SCC 219

¶116

12 -

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

NC: 2026:KHC:36190 CRL.P No. 14664 of 2025

¶119

CNR: KAHC010691482025

¶120

“ 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;

¶121

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

¶122

28. An offence under Section 503 has the

¶123

following essentials:

¶124

(1) Threatening a person with any injury;

¶125

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

¶126

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

¶127

(2) The threat must be with intent;

¶128

( i ) to cause alarm to that person; or

¶129

( 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

¶130

( 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.

¶131

29. Section 504 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

¶132

13 -

¶133

HC-KAR

¶134

NC: 2026:KHC:36190 CRL.P No. 14664 of 2025

¶135

CNR: KAHC010691482025

¶136

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 self-control or having been subjected to abject terror by the offender.

¶137

30. 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. 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.

¶138

31. 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. Chunnibhai Dayabhai [ King Emperor v. ChunnibhaiDayabhai , (1902) 4 Bom LR 78] , a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:

¶139

14 -

¶140

HC-KAR

¶141

NC: 2026:KHC:36190 CRL.P No. 14664 of 2025

¶142

CNR: KAHC010691482025

¶143

“ To constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC 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 .”

¶144

(emphasis supplied)

¶145

32. A bare perusal of Section 506 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.

¶146

33. 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 IPC may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not under Section 504 IPC. The allegations with respect to the offence punishable under Section 504 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 by the accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the FIR.

¶147

34. One of the essential elements, as discussed above, constituting an offence under Section 504 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 .”

¶148

(Emphasis supplied at each instance)

¶149

10. In the light of them not making out any offence, permitting further proceedings against the petitioners would

¶150