Karnataka High Court

Malavika Periyaswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

Reserved on : 12.06.2025
Pronounced on : 25.06.2025 R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11368 OF 2024
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11384 OF 2024

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.11368 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

MALAVIKA PERIYASWAMY
D/O LATE S.PERIYASAMY
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 302
3RD FLOOR, EMBASSY PALACE
NANDIDURGA JAYMAHAL EXTENSION
BENGALURU CITY - 560 046.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ADIT CHANDANGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY J.C.NAGAR POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

2. ARADHANA PUNJA
W/O RAMAKRISHNA PUNJA
2

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.G-1
GROUND FLOOR, 64
EMBASSY PLACE, NANDIDURGA ROAD
JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION
BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA - 560 046.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI R.RAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT BEARING
NO. P.C.R./FR 12196/2023 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED
13.03.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) FIR DATED 02.12.2023 IN
CR.NO.0200/2023 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE AS
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 294, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF THE IPC, 1860
AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF 8TH ADDL. CMM, BANGALORE CITY
(ANNEXURE-B), THE CHARGE SHEET BEARING NO.200/2023
DATED 15.03.2024 (ANNEXURE-C) AND THE ORDER DATED
19.04.2024 TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 294,
504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, 1860 AT ANNEXURE-(D) AND ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.12622/2024 WHICH IS NOW
PENDING ON THE FILE OF 8TH ADDL. CMM, BANGALORE CITY AS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.11384 OF 2024
BETWEEN:

GURUAPPA @ CHINNAGURRAPPA CHINNAGUNDAPPA
S/O CHINNAGUNDAPPA
3

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
D.NO. 3/102, OTTARAPALAYAM
DODDAUBBANUR, KRISHNAGIRI
TAMIL NADU-635118.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ABHISHEK K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY J.C.NAGAR POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. ARADHANA
W/O RAMAKRISHNA N.PUNJA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO. G1
GROUND FLOOR, EMBASSY PLACE
NANDIDURGA ROAD
JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION
BENGALURU - 560 056.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI R.RAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.
12622/24 REGISTERED BY JC NAGAR POLICE STATION PENDING
ARSING OUT OF CR. NO. 200/23 ON THE FILE OF 8TH ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (8TH ACMM), BENGALURU CITY FOR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 294, 504, 506 R/W 34
INDIAN PENAL CODE.
4

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.06.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

These twin petitions spring from the same fount of

controversy arising out of C.C.No.12622 of 2024, pending before

the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru,

wherein the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.11368 of 2024 is

accused No.1 and Criminal Petition No.11384 of 2024 concerns

accused No.3. The complainant in both the cases is common.

2. For the sake of convenience, facts obtaining in Criminal

Petition No.11368 of 2024 are narrated.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

It is the case of the prosecution that the 2nd respondent /

complainant registers a private complaint in P.C.R.No.12196 of

2023, which is referred to investigation by the learned Magistrate

under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It then becomes a crime in
5

Crime No.200 of 2023. The reason for registering the crime is an

incident that happens on 28-02-2023. The relationship between

the protagonists is that, the complainant is a resident in an

apartment complex. The complainant is the owner and in

possession of Flat No.G1 on the ground floor of the Embassy Palace,

Nandidurga Road, Jayamahal Extension, Bangalore. Accused No.1

is a resident in Flat No.302, on the third floor of the same

apartment and accused No.3 is a civil contractor. On 28-02-2023,

it is the case of the complainant that she was on her way to the

hospital, to take care of her mother, who had undergone knee

surgery and at that time, she notices six members near the

apartment in the garden area. When the complainant questioned

why those people were standing in the garden area, they replied

that they had come to clean the apartment and dig a rain water

harvesting pit. Therefore, the contractor has brought 4 labourers

and all of them were digging the pit. When the complainant

questioned them, they are said to have used harsh words and sung

some filthy songs. This is the crux of the complaint. The

complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.200 of 2023. The

Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the
6

accused herein for using filthy language against the complainant.

Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the accused to this

Court in the subject petition.

4. Heard Sri Adit Chandangoudar, learned counsel for the

petitioner in Crl.P.No.11368 of 2024, Sri K. Abhishek, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.11384 of 2024 and

in both the petitions, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State

Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri R.Raja,

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in

Crl.P.No.11368/2024, Sri Adit Chandangoudar would vehemently

contend that none of the ingredients of offences are found in the

case at hand. It was the mandate of law that rain water harvesting

has to be done in every place. Rain water harvesting was not done

in which the complainant and accused No.1 are residing. Therefore,

the contractor had brought four people to dig and keep the rain

water harvesting process ready. It is at that time, certain

altercations happen as the complainant did not want rain water

harvesting be done in the apartment area. She goes and files a
7

civil suit seeking injunction against the Association of the apartment

in O.S.No.1667 of 2023. The said suit is pending. Notwithstanding

filing of the suit, the criminal law is also set into motion on the

same set of facts, only to wreak vengeance or counterblast to the

act of the petitioner in seeking to comply with the mandate of law

as notified by the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

('BWSSB').

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the

companion petition would toe the lines of the learned counsel

appearing for accused No.1 in contending that he was given a

contract to do so, which he has done. No fault can be found with

what accused No.3 has done. There is no substance in the

allegations made against him as well.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the

complainant would vehemently contend that the petitioners have

hurled certain abuses, sung some abusive songs and have

threatened the complainant. All these issues would become a

matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean. This Court in
8

exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should

not interfere at this stage.

8. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor -

Sri B.N. Jagadeesha would also toe lines of the learned counsel for

the complainant in contending that the Police after investigation

have filed charge sheet. Certain abusive statements appear to

have been made by the petitioners. Therefore, this Court should

not interfere at this stage and leave the trial to go on for the

petitioners to come out clean.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

10. The issue in the lis revolves around the mandate of

BWSSB and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP'). The

Government had issued circular/Government orders with regard to

mandatory installation of rain water harvesting in every individual

houses and apartment complexes. In apartment complexes, if not

one, it could be more than one. In the block, in which accused
9

No.1 and the complainant are residing, there was admittedly no

rain water harvesting done. To comply with the mandate, accused

No.3 was entrusted with the job of digging a pit for the purpose of

rain water harvesting. At that point in time, the complainant

objects and reaches to the civil Court seeking injunction against

BWSSB and the petitioners against digging any pit for the purpose

of rain water harvesting. The said suit is pending consideration.

11. On the altercations on 28-02-2023 and after instituting

the civil suit, a private complaint is registered by the complainant

invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. A few paragraphs of narration

in the complaint are germane to be noticed. They read as follows:

"6. The complainant submits that the apartment building
consisting of ground floor, first floor, second floor and third
floor.

7. The complainant submits that the accused No.1 is in
occupation of the third floor in flat No.302 which is 2 bed
room flat. The accused No.1 has purchased the aforesaid flat
on 17-03-2021. A copy of the sale deed is herewith produced
herewith.

8. The complainant submits that, on 28-02-2023 at about 12
p.m. the complainant was going to the hospital for taking
care of her mother, who has undergone knee surgery. The
complainant saw 6 members near her apartment in garden
area, when the complainant questioned some of the
labourers why were they standing there "they replied that
they had come to clean the apartment. When the
10

complainant came from hospital she was shocked to see,
that they had dug a rain water harvesting pit in garden area.
Again on 01-03-2023 again 4 labourers came along with
accused No.1 to 3 started digging the pit in open space in
garden area, which is abutting to the western wall of the
complainant. When complainant questioned them, stating
that when there is an existing rain water harvesting pit in the
south western side, why do you need another rain water
harvesting pit, the accused No.1 to 3 started abusing me
in a filthy language, started talking about character
assassination and threatened me with life. Accused
No.3 is a contractor and accused No.2 is friend of
accused No.1.

9. The complainant submits that, accused No.1 and 2
started insulting using harsh words such as name
calling and cursing. Every harsh word that was
purposely spoken about complainant only with the
intent to harm and hurt her, which is causing her
headaches, lots of tears, praying to god to make it go
away and isolation. It is a mental harassment, agony,
stress resulted in health problems.

10. The complainant submits that accused No.1 and 2
intentionally insulted her in front of labourers and
accused No.2 was provoking the labourers to assault
her in case if she objects.

11. The accused No.1 to 3 started threatening
complainant otherwise they would make her life
miserable by filing false case against her and would
demolish the structure. The accused No.1 to 3
threatened that if the complainant lodges a report or
go to court she would be killed. Complainant is
apprehending danger to her life.

12. It is submitted that complainant approached the
jurisdictional police station for lodging complaint against
accused No.1 to 3 on 01-03-2023 she was made to wait they
did not receive her complaint. Then complainant lodge a
complaint before the Commissioner of Police, a copy of
complaint is produced herewith."
(Emphasis added)
11

Investigation is sought on the aforesaid incident, which is said to

have happened on 28-02-2023. This becomes a crime in Crime

No.200 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 294, 504,

506 r/w 34 of the IPC. The police conduct investigation.

Investigation led to filing of a charge sheet against the petitioners

again for the very same offences that were alleged in the crime.

Summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column 17 reads as

follows:

"17. ೇ ನ ಸಂ ಪ ಾ ಾಂಶ
' ೋ ಾ ೋಪ ಾ ಪ ಾಲಂ ನಂ: 12 ರ ನಮೂ ರುವ ಆ ೋ"ತರು
$ಾಂಕ:28/02/2023 ರಂದು ಮ'ಾ(ಹ* ಸು+ಾರು 12:00 ಗಂ-ೆ ಸಮಯದ , /ೆ. .ನಗರ
0 ೕ1 2ಾ ಾ ಸರಹ 3ನ ನಂ ದುಗ4 ರ ೆ, ಎಂ¨É ಅ7ಾಟ49ಂಟ* ಮುಂ:ಾಗದ ಮ;ೆ
<ೕರು ೊ¬Äಲು - ªÀiÁಡಲು >ೊಂಡವನು* ?ೊ@ ಾ3 ೆ. ಈ ಬCೆD, ಾ -1 ರವರು $ಾಂಕ:
01.03.2023 ರಂದು ಕೂ ಾE4ಕ ಗುರಪF ೊಂ Cೆ ಎ1, & ಎ2 >ಾಗೂ ಎ3
ಆ ೋ"ತರು ಅ7ಾಟ49ಂG ಮುಂ:ಾಗದ /ಾಗದ ಗುಂ@ ?ೊಡುವHದನು* ಕಂಡು ಮ;ೆ
<ೕರು ಸಂಗIJಸಲು >ೊಂಡ ಈCಾಗKೆ ಇ ೆಂದು ಪIM* ದ ೆ ಆ ೋ"ತರು ಾವ4ಜ<ಕ
ಸOಳದ ಆ²èÃಲQಾR ಸೂ;ೆ
ಸೂ;ೆ,
;ೆ ಸೂ;ೆ ಸೂ;ೆ ಮುಂSೆ,
ಮುಂSೆ ೋT ಸೂ;ೆ,
ಸೂ;ೆ ೆಟ ಪದಗUಂದ <ಂ
FUCK AND BITCH ಎಂದು ಒಂದು WೕX >ಾ@ನಂ?ೆ >ಾ@ & ಅಸಭ(QಾR ೆಟ
ಪದಗUಂದ/ಶಬ3
ಪದಗUಂದ ಶಬ3ಗUಂದ +ಾತ$ಾ@ ಾ -1ರವWCೆ
ರವWCೆ ZWZW ಉಂಟು +ಾ@ 7ಾIಣ
]ೆದW ೆಯನು* >ಾZರು?ಾ ೆ.ೆ ಈ ಬCೆD ಾ -1 ರವರು +ಾನ( $ಾ(^ಾಲಯದ ". .ಆ_
ಆ_
ಮು`ೇನ ಪIಕರಣವನು* ' ಾಖKೆ ದು3 ಪIಕರಣದ ಆ ೋ"ತರುಗಳb Mcಾಹ4 ಅಪ ಾಧ
ಎಸRರುವHದು,
ಎಸRರುವHದು ತ<`ೆeಂದ ಮತು ಲಭ( ಾPÁëöå'ಾರಗUಂದ ಧೃಡಪ ರುತ ೆ.ೆ

ಆದ3Wಂದ 9ೕಲgಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ Wೕ?ಾ( ೋ ಾ ೋಪ ೆ ಪ ಯನು* +ಾನ ಘನ
$ಾ(^ಾಲಯ ೆg ಸ ರುತ ೆ."

(Emphasis added)
12

The complaint is voluminous, yet materially thin. It alludes to

name calling, alleged insults and vague references to character

assassination. However, the embellishments that have emerged in

the charge sheet are conspicuously absent in the original complaint,

which would become retrospective additions tailored for effect.

The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 294,

504 and 506 of the IPC. Section 294 of the IPC. They read as

follows:

"294. Obscene acts and songs.--Whoever, to the
annoyance of others,--

(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or

(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene songs, ballad or
words, in or near any public place,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or
with both."

Section 294 of IPC punishes a person who performs obscene

acts and sing obscene songs in a public place. Interpretation of

Section 294 of the IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve
13

deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of N.S.

MADHANAGOPAL v. K.LALITHA1 has held as follows:

".... .... ....

6. Section 294(b)IPC talks about the obscene acts
and songs. Section 294IPC as a whole reads thus:

"294. Obscene acts and songs.--Whoever,
to the annoyance of others--

(a) does any obscene act in any public place,
or

(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene songs,
ballad or words, in or near any public
place, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may
extend to three months, or with fine, or
with both."

7. It is to be noted that the test of obscenity
under Section 294(b)IPC is whether the tendency
of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave
and corrupt those whose minds are open to such
immoral influences. The following passage from the
judgment authored by K.K. Mathew, J. (as his Lordship
then was) reported in P.T. Chacko v. Nainan
Chacko [P.T. Chacko v. Nainan Chacko, 1967 SCC
OnLine Ker 125 : 1967 KLT 799] explains as follows :
(SCC OnLine Ker paras 5-6)

"5. The only point argued was that the 1st
accused has not committed an offence punishable
under Section 294(b)IPC, by uttering the words
1
(2022) 17 SCC 818
14

above-mentioned. The courts below have held that
the words uttered were obscene and the utterance
caused annoyance to the public. I am not inclined
to take this view. In R. v. Hicklin [R. v. Hicklin,
(1868) LR 3 QB 360] , QB at p. 371 Cockburn, C.J.
Laid down the test of "obscenity" in these words :
(QB p. 371)

'... the test of obscenity is this, whether
the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity
is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are
open to such immoral influences....'

6. This test has been uniformly followed in
India. The Supreme Court has accepted the
correctness of the test in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State
of Maharashtra [Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of
Maharashtra, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 52 : AIR 1965
SC 881]. In Roth v. United States [Roth v. United
States, 1957 SCC OnLine US SC 106: 1 L Ed 2d
1498 : 354 US 476 (1957)] , Chief Justice
Warren said that the test of "obscenity" is the
'substantial tendency to corrupt by arousing
lustful desires'. Mr Justice Harlan observed that
in order to be "obscene" the matter must "tend to
sexually impure thoughts". I do not think that the
words uttered in this case have such a tendency. It
may be that the words are defamatory of the
complainant, but I do not think that the words
are "obscene" and the utterance would
constitute an offence punishable under
Section 294(b)IPC."

8. It has to be noted that in the instance
case, the absence of words which will involve
some lascivious elements arousing sexual
thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the
offence under Section 294(b). None of the records
disclose the alleged words used by the accused. It
may not be the requirement of law to reproduce in
all cases the entire obscene words if it is lengthy,
but in the instant case, there is hardly anything on
15

record. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative
words by itself cannot attract an offence under
Section 294(b)IPC.

9. To prove the offence under Section
294IPC mere utterance of obscene words are not
sufficient but there must be a further proof to
establish that it was to the annoyance of others,
which is lacking in the case. No one has spoken
about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and
in the absence of legal evidence to show that the
words uttered by the appellant-accused annoyed
others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of
the offence under Section 294(b)IPC is made
out."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court holds that in the absence of words which will

involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or

feelings and those words are not spoken in a public place, it would

not attract the offence under Section 294 of the IPC. Section 294

of the IPC penalizes obscene acts in public places. The Apex Court

holds that mere abusive or humiliating language accompanied by

lasciviousness does not constitute obscenity. As the petitioners are

not alleged of any obscene act in a public place and they are not

alleged of singing obscene songs in a public place, it is

ununderstandable as to where from the Police could trace the
16

obscene songs being sung by these petitioners in a public place,

while filing the charge sheet. There is neither public setting in its

true sense nor any indecent act as contemplated under Section 294

of the IPC. Therefore, the offence under Section 294 of the IPC is

loosely laid against these petitioners.

12. The other offences are the ones punishable under

Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC

read as follows:

"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.
.... .... ....

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;

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
17

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

Both the provisions have ingredients in Section 503 of the IPC.

Section 503 of the IPC reads as follows:

"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 threats, commits criminal intimidation.

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

What would be the purport of Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC

again need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the

matter. The Apex Court in the case of MOHD.WAJID v. STATE OF

UTTAR PRADESH2 has held as follows:

"Sections 503, 504 and 506 IPC

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

2
2023 SCC OnLine Sc 951
18

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.

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

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."

26. Section 504 reads thus:

"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."

27. Section 506 reads thus:

"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;

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."

28. An offence under Section 503 has the
following essentials:
19

(1) Threatening a person with any injury;

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

(2) The threat must be with intent;

(i) to cause alarm to that person; or
(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
(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.

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 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.

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
20

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."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court categorically holds that mere use of harsh or

abusive language does not ipso facto constitute criminal

intimidation or provocation resulting in breach of peace. The

ingredients thus, of any of the offences, are conspicuously absent.

13. If the allegations against the petitioners are considered on

the bedrock of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the

judgments quoted supra, the allegations are frivolous, would be the

unmistakable inference. There is nothing that would point at the

petitioners criminally intimidating the complainant. These

petitioners were doing their job complying with the mandate of

BWSSB for installation of rain water harvesting in every area. The

complainant ought not to have objected to the execution of

mandate of law. Notwithstanding the same, a civil suit is also
21

instituted seeking injunction against BWSSB and office bearers not

to comply with the installation of rain water harvesting on the

ground there is enough rainfall. Having filed a suit for injunction,

on an imaginary plea of hurling abuses, the complainant could not

have set the criminal law into motion. While the allegations have

no bearing on what the civil Court would do, but the contents of the

complaint and the summary of charge sheet leave one in doubt as

to what is the offence committed by these petitioners.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances it becomes apposite to

refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF

HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL3 wherein it laid down as follows:

".... .... ....

102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV
and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a
series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though
it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines

3
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
22

or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of
the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
23

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

(Emphasis supplied)

The cumulative effect of the complaint, the charge sheet and

the judicial precedents renders the prosecution's case ex-

facie unsustainable. The proceedings reek of malafides and

appear to have been initiated not to vindicate justice, but to

harass and entangle the petitioners in legal rigmarole. In

view of the preceding analysis and the judgments of the Apex Court

quoted supra, permitting further trial against these petitioners

would become an abuse of the process of law and result in patent

injustice. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to exercise my

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and obliterate the

proceedings.
24