Sri T P Dayananda Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2026CRL.P/2638/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; CRL.P No. 2638 of 2019; Justice Ravi V Hosmani; decided 22 June 2026; quashing of proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C.; offences under Sections 504 and 507 IPC; Crime No.172/2018, Hulimavu Police Station; C.C.No.26892/2018, 5th Addl. C.M.M. Court, Bengaluru; alleged abusive and threatening phone call to sister amid partition suit O.S.No.4125/2018; absence of anonymity/concealment of identity (S.507) and of intentional insult provoking breach of peace (S.504); abuse of process of law; FIR/proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.26892/2018 registered by Hulimavu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 507 IPC against the petitioner stand quashed. ¶51-52

Sri T P Dayananda Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.26892/2018 registered by Hulimavu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 507 IPC against the petitioner stand quashed.

¶51-52

Issue for consideration

Whether the essential ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 504 IPC — intentional insult so as to provoke breach of peace or commission of any other offence — is made out against the petitioner. +2 more

¶44

Court's answer

The essential ingredient for an offence punishable under Section 504 IPC is intentional insult so as to provoke breach of peace or commission of any other offence.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The essential ingredient for an offence under Section 507 IPC is anonymity or an attempt by the accused to hide his identity.

¶44

Key takeaways

On perusal of the complaint, statements and charge sheet, there is no attempt by the accused to hide his identity, so the essential ingredient of Section 507 IPC is absent.ratio¶49
There is non-mention of the abusive words allegedly uttered and no material to indicate intentional insult of such nature as to provoke breach of peace or commission of any other offence, so the essential ingredient of Section 504 IPC is absent.ratio¶49
In the absence of essential ingredients of the offences, continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, justifying quashing.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. — Quashing — Offences punishable under Ss.504 and 507 IPC (C.C.No.26892/2018, V Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru, arising from Crime No.172/2018 of Hulimavu Police Station) — Dispute between siblings; complainant-sister alleged that during witness summons stage of partition suit O.S.No.4125/2018, petitioner telephoned and abused/threatened her against attending the Civil Court — Charge sheet filed after investigation — HELD: essential ingredient of S.504 IPC is intentional insult so as to provoke breach of peace or commission of any other offence; essential ingredient of S.507 IPC is anonymity or attempt by accused to hide his identity — Perusal of complaint, statements and charge sheet reveals no attempt by accused to hide his identity, and there is non-mention of abusive words uttered or any material indicating intentional insult of such nature as to provoke breach of peace — Essential ingredients absent; continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law — Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.26892/2018 against petitioner quashed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:30730 CRL.P No. 2638 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2638 OF 2019

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. T. P. DAYANANDA REDDY S/O PILLA REDDY, R/AT NO.2110, THUBARAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 062.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ANANDA V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH HULIMAVU POLICE, BANGALORE CITY, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

SMT. CHANDRAKANTHAMMA D/O PILLA REDDY, W/O KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO.40, G.M.PALYA, BYRASANDRA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 075.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. BHARATH M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:30730 CRL.P No. 2638 of 2019

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENTS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.26892/2018 AT ANNEXURE-D (V ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU) AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF FIR IN CR.NO.172/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504 AND 507 OF IPC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed for quashing of proceedings in CC.no.26892/2018 on file of 5^th Addl. C.M.M. Court, Bengaluru, in pursuance of Crime no.172/2018 registered by Hulimavu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 507 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC').

¶26

Sri V. Ananda, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that complainant is sister of petitioner. It was submitted that another sister Smt.P.Indira had filed O.S.no.4125/2018 seeking for partition and separation possession. In same, respondent no.2/complainant had

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:30730 CRL.P No. 2638 of 2019

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

received witness summons. While she was in house of CW-2 and CW-3 on 01.07.2018, petitioner called complainant and verbally abused and threatened her against attending matter before Civil Court. Due to same, complainant fell ill and lodged police complaint belatedly on 04.07.2018. Based on same, Crime no.172/2018 was registered by Hulimavu Police and after investigation charge sheet at Annexure-C was filed in C.C.no.26892/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 507 of IPC.

¶31

It was firstly submitted that contents of

¶32

complaint indicated that there was a civil dispute pending between complainant and accused. To exert pressure, complaint was filed. It was secondly submitted that none of ingredients necessary for offences alleged were present. In complaint, it was merely stated that there was a call from petitioner to complainant and after abusing complainant, she was asked not to attend Court, failing which rowdies would be sent to take away her life. It was

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:30730 CRL.P No. 2638 of 2019

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

submitted that there was no mention that it was an anonymous call or petitioner/accused had made any attempt to hide his identity. Therefore, offence under Section 507 of IPC would not sustain.

¶37

Likewise, there was no material to substantiate intentional insult or provocation with knowledge that it was likely to cause breach of peace or to commit any other offence. In absence of material to substantiate essential ingredients of offences, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and therefore, sought for quashing same.

¶38

On other hand, Smt.Soumya R., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent no.1 and Sri Bharath M., learned counsel appearing for Sri C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent no.2 opposed petition. It was submitted, based on complaint and after recording of statements of CW-2 and CW-3, collecting call detail records, conducting panchanama etc.,

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30730 CRL.P No. 2638 of 2019

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

charge sheet was filed. Prima-facie, call detail records indicated that there was a call from petitioner's mobile number to that of complainant. And allegations about abusive words uttered and threat offered would require to be established in trial and there was sufficient material for prosecution.

¶42

Heard learned counsel and perused material on

¶43

record.

¶44

This petition is filed by sole accused challenging proceedings initiated in C.C.no.26892/2018 for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 507 of IPC on ground of lack of ingredients of offence. At outset, essential ingredient for offence punishable under Section 504 is intentional insult so as to provoke breach of peace or for commission of any other offence. Likewise, essential ingredient for offence under Section 507 would be anonymity or attempt by accused to hide his identity.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:30730 CRL.P No. 2638 of 2019

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Perusal of complaint, statements as well as

¶49

charge sheet reveals no attempt by accused to hide his identity. Besides there is non-mention of abusive words uttered or any material to indicate intentional insult of such nature as to provoke breach of peace or commission of any other offence. In absence of essential ingredients, as rightly submitted, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶50

In view of above, petition is allowed .

¶51

Proceedings in C.C.no.26892/2018 registered by Hulimavu Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 504

¶52

and 507 of IPC against petitioner, stands quashed.

¶53

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶54

MCR

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Sri T P Dayananda Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T P Dayananda Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Vasu Vs State of Karnataka

Jayarama H Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H D Ganganna Vs Manjunath H B

Sri Charan L Vs Sri.P.S.Nayak

Naveen Kumara S H Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sharath Vs State of Karnataka