Sri Rajeev Gowda B V vs State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 390 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri Rajeev Gowda B V vs State Of Karnataka on 22 January, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                             1



Reserved on   : 20.01.2026
                                                     R
Pronounced on : 22.01.2026

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.716 OF 2026

                             C/W

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.721 OF 2026


IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.716 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

SRI RAJEEV GOWDA B. V.,
S/O SRI VARDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/A NO. 34, SURYA SILK CITY LAYOUT
KANKANAGARA, SHIDLAGHATTA
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.
                                                ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI K.N.SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY
     SHIDLAGATTA TOWN P.S.
     REPRESENTED BY
                             2




     STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT BUILDING
     BENGALURU, PINCODE - 560 001.

2.   MISS. AMRUTHA G.,
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
     C/O MUNICIPAL OFFICE
     ASHOKA ROAD
     SHIDLAGATTA TOWN
     CHIKKABALLAPURA
     KARNATAKA - 562 101.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR
BEARING CR.NO.9/2026 REGISTERED BY THE SHIDLAGHATTA
TOWN P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 132, 224, 352, 351(3), 56
OF BNS, 2023 AND COMPLAINT DTD 14.01.2026, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND CJM COURT,
SHIDLAGHATTA, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, VIDE ANNEXURE A
AND B RESPECTIVELY.


IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.721 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

SRI RAJEEV GOWDA
S/O SRI VARDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO. 34, WARD NO.01
SURYA SILK CITY LAYOUT
OPP. GARUDADRI SCHOOL
KANKANAGARA, SHIDLAGHATTA
CHIKKABALAPURA - 562 101.
                                              ... PETITIONER
                            3



(BY SRI VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI K.N.SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY
     SIDDALAGATTAH TOWN P.S.
     REPRESENTED BY
     STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT BUILDING
     BENGALURU
     PINCODE - 560 001.

2.   SRI C.N.SRINIVAS GOWDA
     S/O CHIKKAMUNEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
     R/AT NAGAMANGALA VILLAGE
     SHIDDALAGATTA TOWN
     CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
BNSS., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR
BEARING CR.NO.10/2026 REGISTERED BY THE SHIDLAGHATTA
TOWN P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 352, 353(2) OF BNS, 2023
AND COMPLAINT DTD 14.01.2026, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND CJM COURT,
SHIDLAGHATTA, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT AND COMPLIANT
DATED 14.01.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND B.


     THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.01.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                                 4




CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                            CAV ORDER


      The accused is common in both these petitions and the

complainants are different. The crimes arises out of a solitary

incident. The crimes are Crime Nos. 9 of 2026 and 10 of 2026. In

Crime No.9 of 2026, the offences alleged are the ones punishable

under Sections 132, 224, 352, 351(3) and 56 of the BNS and in

Crime No.10 of 2026, the offences alleged are the ones punishable

under Sections 352, 353(2) of the BNS.



      2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:


Crl.P.No.716 of 2026:


      2.1. The root of the dispute traces itself to the publicity and

promotion of a motion picture titled "Cult". A film promotion

programme was proposed to be conducted on 13-01-2026 at Nehru

Stadium, Shidlaghatta Town which is said to be under the

leadership of the petitioner. Banners with the portrait of the

petitioner are said to have been installed all over the city Fort area.
                                  5



The banners and placards that were hanging for the film promotion

fell down and are said to have hit certain vehicles.          In this

connection oral complaint comes to be made to the complainant.

The complainant along with the Health Inspector cleared the

banners, as they were disturbing the public. On       12-01-2026 at

3.45 p.m., the petitioner over his mobile No.9900004501 calls the

complainant and hurls abuses which were not in good taste. The

complainant is said to have been terrified, mentally traumatized, as

it was in utter defamation of a woman and the staff. Then, on the

incident, the complainant registers a complaint, which becomes a

crime in Crime No.9 of 2026.


Crl.P.No.721 of 2026:


      2.2. The complainant in this case is said to be the Vice-

President   of   a   political   party   of   Shiddalagatta    Taluk,

Chikkaballapura District. The allegation is that on   12-01-2026 at

about 3.45 p.m. the petitioner calls the public servant/the Municipal

Commissioner, the complainant in the companion petition, from his

mobile number and is said to have hurled abuses on her. This

recording goes viral on all social media platforms. On the allegation
                                  6



that the petitioner without obtaining any permission or approval has

put up banners, flexes in the port area and had spoken bad words

against the sitting MLA of the constituency, in the telephonic

conversation with the complainant in the companion petition, the

crime comes to be registered. The registration of crime in both

these cases in Crime Nos. 9 of 2026 and 10 of 2026 has driven the

petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.



      3. Heard in both the cases Sri Vivek Reddy, learned senior

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha,

learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.



      4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner

would vehemently contend that the offences alleged in Crime No.9

of 2026 are all bailable offences, except the one which is Section

132 of the BNS. Section 132 of the BNS does not get attracted in

the case at hand at all, as there is no criminal force used by the

petitioner to stop a public servant from performing his/her duties.

The offence is erroneously laid against the petitioner. If that offence

is stayed, the petitioner is prepared to cooperate with the
                                 7



investigation/enquiry, with certain protection from the hands of the

Court. He would also submit that petitioner is ready and willing to

tender public apology to what has been uttered against the

complainant in the fit of anger. He would seek protection at the

hands of this Court, as anticipatory bail has not been considered

still and is yet to be considered and therefore, there is threat of

arrest.



      5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

representing the State would contend that the crime under Section

132 of the BNS may have been registered now.           FIR is not an

encyclopedia.   Appropriate    crime    may     emerge    after   the

investigation. If it is not Section 132, it could be 74 or it could be

79 of the BNS, as admittedly the petitioner has spoken such words

that would undoubtedly outrage the modesty of the woman, apart

from the fact that he has stopped the public servant from

performing her duties. He would submit that investigation, in the

least, must be permitted to be continued and has produced

transcript of the conversation between the petitioner and the
                                   8



complainant in Crime No.9 of 2026. He would seek dismissal of the

petitions.



      6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.



      7. The afore-narrated facts and the link in the chain of

events are not matters of conjecture, they rest firmly upon

the record. A Kannada film titled 'Cult' appears to have

provided the genesis of the present controversy. It is alleged

that, for the purpose of promoting the said film, banners and

flexes were erected in and around the Nehru Stadium,

Shidlaghatta    town    in   contemplation          of    a    promotional

programme      proposed      to   be    held   on    13-01-2026.        The

petitioner stated to be a politician and a contestant in the

legislative assembly elections 2023, albeit unsuccessful, has

allegedly    caused    flexes     and   banners      to       be   displayed

extensively throughout the City Fort area, thereby leading to
                                      9



disturbance of public tranquility and inconvenience to road

users.


     8.     In   view    of    the   said   disturbance,    the   Municipal

Commissioner, who is the complainant in Crime No. 9 of 2026, is

said to have caused removal of certain placards, banners and

flexes, which were allegedly erected in an accident prone area and

were obstructing vehicular movement. The complainant being a

public servant, was evidently performing her official duties in

accordance with law. The removal of the banners is alleged to have

provoked the petitioner, who, in a fit of anger, is said to have

called/telephoned the Municipal Commissioner from his mobile

number and hurled abuses at her. The conversation between the

petitioner and the complainant is necessary to be extracted to

notice whether, there is some substance in the allegation. The

conversation as produced by the learned Additional State Public

Prosecutor reads as follows:


     "    ಾಂಕ:12/01/026 ರಂದು ಮ ಾ ಹ 3:49 ಗಂ ೆ ಸಮಯದ   ಾತ ಾ ರುವ ಆ    ೕವನು ೇ
     ಪ !ೕ ಸ"ಾ#,

     ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- ಹ"ೋ ಹ"ೋ
                                    10



*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ :- ಹ"ೋ -ೕಡಂ ಅದು .ಾ ನ/ 0ZÉÆÑÃ ೆ1 2ೇ   ಾ3

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- ಇ"ಾ ಸ/ ಅದು ಒಂದು .ಾ ನ/ ಆ *ೋ6 ೋ ೆದ , ಮದ ದ .. 2ಾ7089ದ3ಂ:ೆ,
ಅ ೇ ೋ &ಾ ಗ &ೆ ಗು ; ೊಂಡು 2ೋ#089 ಾ;*ೆ ಅವ<3 =ಾ*ೋ ಪ0> ಕಂ?ೆಂ@      ಾBಾC ಇದು3
ಅಂದು0ಟು9 ಾನು ಅಪE/ ಸ/ ಅವ &ೆ 2ೇ zÉÝ ಸ/ ಒಂದು ಚೂರು Gೈಡ ಕ89 ೊ I ಎಂದು 2ೇ zÉÝ.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ :-ನK .ಾ ನ/ ಏ ಾದರೂ 0MN ೆ3 ಬಂದು .ೆಂ7 ಹMNP 0rÛ¤, ನನ ಒQೆIತನ
 ೋ   ;ೕ ಇನು ನನ ೆಟ9ತನ ೋ ಲ,

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- ಸ/ ಒಂದು STಷ, .ಾ ನ/ £Àß - 0aÑ.P0ಟು9 ಅದು ಆVೕPನ            ೆ ಸ/ ಅದನ
ಮದ ದ    ಎ"ಾ ಕ89 ಾ;*ೆ ಅ7EBೆಂ@ ಆ# ೆWಂ:ೆ, ಸ/ ಒಂದು STಷ ೇ        ಅದು ಅ7EBೆಂ@ ಆ# ೆ
ಸ/ ಪ0> ಇಂದ ಕಂ?ೆಂ@ ಬಂ       ೆ

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ಒಂದು STಷ ಎರಡು STXಾ ೇಳ¯Áè ಾನು ಾಂ+Zೕಂ+ ೌSEಲ/ ಗಳ ತರ [\
ೋ.ೇ ನಂ&ೆ ಮನುಷ ಅಲ ಆ-ೕ"ೆ 2ೇ½ÛÃS ಆVೕ] ನ ಒಂದು STಷ ಕೂvÉÆÌüÉÆîà ೆ ಆಗಲ...


*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ :- ಕಂ?ೇಂ@ ಬಂ ೆ3 .ಾ ನ/ =ಾ ೆ 7ೕ½Û


ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- .ಾ ನ/ 7[Cಲ ಸ/ :ೆ&ೆದು0ಟು9 ಅVೕPನ ಇ89 ಾ;*ೆ ಾನು .ೆಳ&ೆ^ ೆ ಇ_ ?ಾK`
 ಾ ¢Ýನಲ

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ :- ಅವನ ಮa_ ಸೂQೆ ಮಗ =ಾವ_ 0MNದ;           =ಾವ_ 0MNb ಅವನ ಮa_ ಸೂQೆ
ಮಗ ಕ89 ೆ3 ಸ ಅವನ ಮa_ ಇಲಂ ೆ3 ೋ CS, ಾನು ಏನು ಅಂತ ತಂದು ಈ&ಾ

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- ಸ/ Sೕವ< ಅಂ&ೇ®è    ಾತಡ.ೇ , ಅದು ನಮa ಎಂ?ಾd] ಗಳe 0MNರೂದು, ಅ
ಆ7EBೆಂ@ ಆ# ೆ ಅ   ೆ1 :ೆ&ೆದು ಇ89 ಾ;*ೆ ಅVೕ] ನ ಸ/.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ: ಏf ಏ_         ಾ:ಾಡ.ೇ    ಅವನ ಮa_ ಈಸ         ಸ ೕGಾ# [ಳ ೊಂBೆ3 ಮನುಷ
 ಾನಲ 2ೇ [`S ಈಗ ಎ"ಾ ಕ ೊಂ`ಡು ಬಂದು        ಾQೆ 0ಟು9 ಓ6 0ಡ.ೇಕು :ಾಲೂಕು ಆ ೆಲಸ
ೊ CೕS ಅವನ ಮa_

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- ಸ/     ೋ   ¥ÉÊ]9 ಅವರು ಪTೕ`ಷ_ &ೆ ಅ¥Éè,      ಾಡ ೆ1 2ೇ , ಏನೂ   ಾ ಲ,
.ಾ ನ/ ಇ .ಗh ಆ# ಕಟ9 0ಟು9 2ೋ# ಾ;*ೆ, ಅದು ಅ8]9 Gೈಂ8V> ಆ# ಕ@ ಇಲ ಸ/ ಮಧ
*ೋಡ ಕ89 ಾ;*ೆ ಆ7EBೆಂ@ ಆ ೆ3 ಾ, *ೆ] ?ಾSEಬh ಆ#[`j ಅದ ೆ1.
                                       11



*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ :- "ಾ]9 ೈK ಅಂ&ೆ ಕ89b .ಾ ನ/ 0MN ಆ .ೋ ಮಗ, ಸೂQೆ ಮಗ ಅವನ ಮa_
ಎಂ ಎh ಎ .ಾ ನ/ ಕ89P 3 Sೕನು ಈಗ 2ೇQಾCd ;ೕS ಒಳIತನkಾ# ೆ3 ಸ                    ಏ_ ಇ ,     ಪ*ೆ_E
ಗಳe    ಾ   ೆ3 ಅವನ ಮa_ .ೆ I&ೆ^ ಇಂದ ಒಂದು Gೆ ೆಂ6 ೆಲಸ             ಾBೋ ೆ ಆಗಲ 2ೇ [`S [Qೆl 1ೕ

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- ಸ/ ೋ      ಸ/ Sೕವ< ಕ*ೆಂ@ ಆ#              ಾ:ಾ     ಸ/ ಇ , ಎಂ¥Áèd] ಗಳ -ೕ"ೆ
ಅಂm ಸೂQೆಮ&ೆ ಎಂತ .ೈ.ೇ , ಎವ ಬ         *ೆ] ?ಾ¤ìಬ 8, Sೕವ< ಆ , ಅವ &ೆ ಪಸ9nಾh ಅವರು
ಪTೕ`ಷ_ ತ&ೊಂBೇ ಇ¯Áè, ಅವರು

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ :- ಏf .ಾ ನ/ 2ೆಂm 0MN 3

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ಕ89 ಾ;ರ"ಾ, ಪT`ಷ_ ೊ89 ಾ;ರ"ಾ ತಂದು ಇ

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- =ಾರು ೊ89 ಾ;*ೆ ಸ/ ಅZ ೇಷ_ "ೆಟ/ ೊ89"ಾ ಮಧ ದ                     ಕ89 ಾ;*ೆ ಆ7EBೆಂ@
ಆ#&ೆ j ಆ/ *ೆGಾoSಬh ಏ ಾದರು ಆಯುC ಅಂ ೆ3 ನಮaವರು pೈ &ೆ 2ೋ&ಾC*ೆ ¸Áéq ಗಳe.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ?ೈ]9 ಇ*ೋ *ೆ]¥Á¤ì©°n ತ&ೋ I, ಅ                   .ೆ I&ೆ^ ಬಂದು ಎ"ಾ, ೌ£Àì÷è]`
ಎ0rPCೕS ಜನ ಾ ಅ ಬಂದು 2ೊ [ ೆ3 ಚಪo 2ೊ ¸ÉÆÌÃ.ೇಕು ಅ .

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- ಏತ ೆ1 ಸ/ =ಾ ೆ ಅಂ&ೆ        ಾBಾC*ೆ ಅ@ ೕ]9 ಕ@ .ೇ ಾ ೆ3 ೇ\ .ೇಕ¯Áè ಸಕ`h
Tಡh ಅ ಕ89 ೆ3 =ಾ/ *ೆ] ?ಾSEಬ 8 ತ&ೊQಾC*ೆ ಅದ ಾ .

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ಇ*ೋ ಸಮGೆ ಬ&ೆ ಹ Gೋ ೆ                ೕಗ :ೆ ಇಲ *ೆ] ?ಾSE0 8, *ೆ] ?ಾSE0 8
ಇ ೆ=ಾ Sಮ&ೆ ಎ"ಾ 31 kಾ6` ದು ಏ ೇನು ಸಮGೆ ಇ ೆ=ಾ .ೆ I&ೆ^ ಎ"ಾ kಾ ಂ`ದ ಎ0rPCೕS
ದಂ&ೆ ಾ ಬಂದು 2ೊ :ಾd ೆ3 ಚಪo½ 2ೆಂ#ರು:ೆC ಅಂ:ಾ :ೋ PCೕS ಏನು ಅಂ:ಾ ಮನುಷ ಆ-ೕ"ೆ
.ೆ I&ೆ^ 31 kಾ ಂ`ದ ಕ*ೆPCೕS *ೆGಾoSE0 8 ಎಂತ ಇರುತC ೆ.


                              -----        -----     ------

ಅ ೇ   ನ    ಾಂಕ:12/01/2026 ರಂದು ಮ ಾ ಹ 3:52 ಗಂ ೆ ಸಮಯದ                    *ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ ರವರು
ಮತುC !3ೕಮ[ ಅಮೃತ + ?ೌ*ಾಯುಕCರು !ಡಘಟ9 ನಗರಸuೆ ರವರು                           ಾತ ಾ ರುವ 2         ೇ
ಆ      ೕವನು ಪ !ೕ ಸ"ಾ#

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- ಹ"ೋ
                                      12



*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- vೕ_ ಕ@         ಾ   ೆ3 ೕಸ_ ಅ"ಾ, 2ೇ [ೕ`S [Qೆl 1 I, .ೆ I&ೆ^, ಪwಾN:ಾಪ ಏನು
ಅನುಭjಸ.ೇ ಾಗು:ೆC 2ೇ [ೕ`S [Qೆl 1 I, ಆ-ೕ"ೆ, ನನ ಎದುರು2ಾ7 ೊಂBೆ3, .ೆ I&ೆ^,, ಪwಾN:ಾಪ
ಏನಂತ ಎದು ಸ.ೇ ಾಗು:ೆC 2ೇ [ೕ`S [Qೆl 1

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:-       ೋ   ಸ/ ಅದು ಮಧ ದ      ಕ89 ಾ;*ೆ. ಅದನ ಕ890ಟು9   ಾನು Sಮaವ &ೆ ಇ_
nಾK`        ಾ   ;ೕS.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ಪwಾN:ಾಪ ಎದು ಸ.ೇ ಾಗು:ೆC [Qೆl 1 I, ಗೂ.ೆತರ [Qೆl 1.ೇ      ಅವನ ಮa_ ಗೂ.ೆ
ಅಲ ಾನು ಏ ೋ ನyzರು =ಾ*ೋ ಒಬrರು ಇ ಾ;*ೆ ಅಂತ ಅ ೊ ೕದ ೊ1ೕಸ1ರ, ಮ ೆ ತನಕ ಬಂದು
2ೋ#*ೋದ ೊ1ೕಸ1ರ ಸುªÉÄß ಇ ;ೕS, ಏ ೇನು ನ ೕ[ ೆ ಅಂತ ಎ"ಾ &ೊ:ಾC# ೆ ನನ&ೆ ಆದರೂ ಕೂಡ
:ಾQೆadಂದ ಇ ;ೕS, ಏ ೇನು ನ ೕ[ ೆ ಆದೂ3 :ಾQೆadಂದ ಇ ;ೕS ಪ]9 ಅ            .ಾ ನ/ ಕ89 ೆ3 ಸ
ಇ"ಾಂ ೆ3 .ೆ I&ೆ^ ಪwಾN:ಾಪ ಅನುಭjಸ.ೇ ಾಗು:ೆC 2ೇ [ೕ`S [Qೆl 1 ,

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- ಸ/ Tಡh *ೋಡ          ,ಅ    ಪಕ1ದ , ಕ89 ೊ I, ಆ ೋ ೆ ಸಕ`h ನ       ಆ7EBೆಂ@
ಆ&ಾCd ೆ ಸ/ .ೆ I&ೆ^ ಆ7EBೆಂ@ ಆ# ೆ.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:-ಏf 0ZÉÆÌAಡು ಬಂದು ಅವನ ಮa_ ಆVೕ] ಹ[Cರ ಇmÉÆÌüÉÆîà ಅಂತದು; ಏS ೆ
ಅ¯Éèà ಕ89] .ೇ7ತುC ಅದನ , ಸೂQೆ ಮಗ ಅವನ ಮa_,

ಅಮೃತ&ೌಡ:- ಸ/ ೋ         ಅವ &ೆ, ೇ    ಸ/ ಒಂದು STಷ, Sಮaವರ ೌSEಲ/ &ೆ ಆq Bೇ@
  ಾ    ;ೕj, ಆVೕ] ಹ[Cರ ಇ ೆ ಸ/ ಸ{ಲo ಪಕ1ದ ಕ89P ಅಂತ ಾವ< 2ೇ         ;ೕj ಅ«æ&ೆ.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- .ೆ I&ೆ^ ಇಂದ 2ೇQಾCd ;ೕ *ೆGಾoSEಬ     ಇ ೆ ಅಂ:ಾ .ೆ I&ೆ^dಂದ kಾಡ`       ನೂರು
ನೂರು ?ಾ3ಬಂ] ಇ ೆ 31 kಾ `ಗು ತಂದು ಕೂ PCೕS ಅ                ?ಾ3ಬ ಂ Gಾh9      ಾ ಲ ಅಂ ೆ3
ಓ 0ಡ.ೇಕು 0ಟು9 :ಾಲೂ> ನ ಆ ೆಲಸ ೊ            ಲ ಅಂ ೆ3 ನಮa ಅಪoS&ೆ ಹು89ದ ಮಗ ೇ ಅಲ
2ೇ [`S [Qೆl 1. 2ೇ [`S ಈಗ, ಈಗ 2ೇ         ;ೕS ಸಮGೆ *ೆGಾoSE0 8 ಇ ೆ ಅ"ಾ{ Sಮ&ೆ
*ೆGಾoSE0 8 ಏನು ಅಂತ :ೋ PCೕS           ಾನು *ೆGಾoSE0 8     ಾBೋ ೆ ಆಗ.ೇಕು, ಇಲಂ ೆ3
ಓ 0ಡ.ೇಕು :ಾಲೂಕು 0ಟು9, ೆಲಸ ೋ CೕS ಈಗ 31 kಾ ಂ`ದ ನು ಇ*ೋ ಸಮGೆ ಗಳe ಅ ಸ ಲ
ಅಂ ೆ3 *ೆGಾoSE0 8 ಏನು ಅಂ:ಾ :ೋ PCೕS ಈಗ ಏ ೋ ನಮaದು ಇದು ಅ ೊ ಂಡು ಾನು ಸುಮa ೆ
ಕೂ[ ೆ3 ನನ&ೆ :ೋ PCೕ*ಾ Sಮa      ಾಕು ೌh ಾ..

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- ಸ/ ಒಂದು STಷ ೇ , ಾವ< .ೆ I&ೆ ನಮaದು 2ೆhC ಇ_E ?ೆಕ9/ ಅವ &ೆ ಅದು
&ೊ[C"ಾ..
                                   13



*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ಅವನ ಮa_ ಸೂQೆ ಮಗ, ಅವನಮa_ 2ೆhC ಇ_E ?ೆಕ9/ &ೆ 2ೇ , ಅವನ ಮa_
ಮುಟ9.ೇ ಾ ೆ3 ನಮaದು. *ೆGಾoSE0 8 ಇ ೆ=ಾ Sನ&ೆ, ಎಷು9 .ಾ ನ/ ಇkೆ ಅ , :ಾಲೂಕು ಇದ3 ,
ಇ ಾkೆ ಅವ ೆ1"ಾ ಪT`ಷ_, .ೆ I&ೆ^, ಬಂದು :ೋ PCೕS, ಈಗ ಬಂದು :ೋ PCೕS ಅ , ಇ¯ÁèvÛÀA ೆ3
ೇ½ÛS *ೆGಾoSE0 8 Sಮaದು ಏನು ಅಂ:ಾ, ಈಗ :ೋ PCೕS ಏನು ಅಂ:ಾ, ೌ_ ಅ .. ಎ"ೆ ..
ಇ ಾkೆ ಅಂತ *ೆGಾoSE0 8 ಅ     2ೇ½ÛÃS, ಎ"ಾ ಜನರ ಮುಂ ೆ ಕ*ೆದು      ಾ CೕS, ಅಂ ೆ3 ಅಂ#ಂ&ೆ"ಾ
  ಾಡ"ಾ, *ೆGಾoSE0 8 ಏನು ಅಂ:ಾ, ಈಗ :ೋ PCS ಬಂದು *ೆGಾoSE0 8 ಏನು ಅಂ:ಾ, ಅ
ಕ89ದ*ೆ ಸ     ಇ"ಾ ಅಂತ 2ೇ   ೆ3 ಾನು ಮನುಷ ಅ"ಾ ಾನು 2ೇ        ;ೕS, ಇ ೆ3 .ಾ ನ/ &ೆ ಎಷು9
ಕಟ9.ೇ ೋ 2ೇ ಅ Vೕ] ಕ89 ೊ I, ಕ89] ೊ I.

ಅಮೃತ&ೌಡ- ಸ/ ಅದು Vೕ] ದು       ಾ ಟ/ ಅ"ಾ, ಅದು 0ದು; 2ೋm [ತCಂ:ೆ ಅ       ೆ1 ಪಕ1 ೆ1 :ೆ&ೆದು
ಇ89 ಾ;*ೆ.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- Vೕ] ಕ89P ೊ I, |ೕ&ೆ 2ೇ    ;ೕರ"ಾ{ *ೆGಾoSE0 8, ಾQೆdಂದ *ೆGಾoSE0 8
ಏನು ಅಂ:ಾ :ೋ PCೕS.

ಅಮೃತ&ೌಡ:- ಅದ ೆ 2ೇ ದು; ಅವರು ಪಕ1 ೆ1 :ೆ&ೆದು ಇ89 ಾ;*ೆ ಸ/ ಅಂತ.

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- =ಾ ೆ D¥sÀì/ ಅವ &ೆ 2ೇ "ಾ{ ಸ/ ಅದನ .

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ :- ಏf *ೆGಾoSE0     8 ಏನೂ ಅಂ:ಾ :ೋ PCೕS ಾನು, *ೆGಾoSEಬh ಅ"ಾ{ Sೕವ<
ಕTೕಷನ/ *ೇGಾoSE0 8 ಕTೕಷನ/ .ೆ I&ೆ^ 2ೇ CS ಅವನ ಮa_ ಒಂದು .ಾ ನ/ ಪT`ಷ_ ಇ ೆ3,
ಹು}ಾN ಅ ೊ ೕ089 ;ೕ*ಾ ನಂ&ೆ =ಾವ£ÉÆÎà ೈ&ೊಂ.ೆ=ಾ# ೆ¯Áì   ಾBೋ ೆ ಬಂ     ;ೕ*ಾ ಇ

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- ಸ/ ೋ ಸ/ Sೕವ< =ಾ ೆ |ಂ&ೆ        ಾ:ಾ C ;ೕ*ಾ ನನ&ೆ &ೊ:ಾC#C"ಾ

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ :- *ೇ *ೆGಾoSEಬh ಅh kೇS3 Sೕವ< ?ೈ]9 *ೆGಾoSEಬh ಆ# ೆ¯Áì     ಾ

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- ಾ, ಅದ ೆ ೕ ಸ/ 2ೇ½Û*ೋದು ನªÉÄÎ ೇ ಇ , .ೆ I&ೆ^ ಬಂ     ಾ;*ೆ ನK Gಾ9q9 ಅ ಅ

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ಪT`ಷ_ ಇ¯ÉÝ ಒಂದು .ಾ ನ/ ಇ ೆ3 .ೆಂ7 2ೆ½Û      ;ೕS 2ೊ PCೕS ಅಂ ೆ3 ಅಂ#ಂ&ೆ ಆ
ಜನಗಳ ೈ 2ೆಂ&ೆ 2ೊ PCೕS ೋ

ಅಮೃತ&ೌಡ:- ಏ_ ಸ/ ಹಂ&ೆ        ಾ:ಾBಾC ಇ ;ೕ*ಾ Sೕವ<, ಏನು 2ೊ PCೕS ಅಂ ೆ3 Gಾ9q ಗ &ೆ
2ೊ PCೕ*ಾ.
                                       14



*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ಏ ೆಲಸ *ೆGಾoSE0 8 ಅ"ಾ{ ೆಲಸ                 ಾ 3 ಅ , *ೆGಾoSE0 8 ೆ¯Áì    ಾ   3 ಅ¯Áé
ಈ&ಾ ಾQೆdಂದ *ೆGಾoSE0 8=ಾ# ೆಲಸ               ಾ PCೕS        ಾ .

ಅಮೃತ&ೌಡ:- ಾ_ }ೆ>        ಾ    ಾ:ಾ CೕS ಸ/

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ :- ಸ ೕ] ಅ£ÉÆÌÃ089 ;ೕ*ಾ ಅವ:ೆCೕ ೋ ಒಂದು ಅ] ಇದು ೊ83 ಅಂತ 2ೇ                 0ಟು9,
ಅವ ಾಶ ೊ ೆ9 ಅಂತಂ ೆ3 7:ಾCQéಟು9 ಎತುC ೊಂಡು 2ೋ# ಇ ೊ ಬrಂದು =ಾವಂ ೋ ಸೂQೆ ಮಗಂದು
ಕ89P 3

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- ಸ/ ೋ ಹಂ&ೇ¯Áè       ಾ:ಾBೆrೕ Sೕವ<.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ಏf ನªÀÄÄÝ 7ತುC ಇ ೊ ಬು3ದು 2ೆಂ# ಕ89 3.

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- =ಾªÀÅÝ ಕ89 ಾ;*ೆ ಸ/ =ಾವ<ದು ಕ89 ಾ;*ೆ ಅ                ಇ*ೋದು ಆ ಇ ೕ ಇದ3      SªÉÄÝ
?ಾಟ`ನ]` ಗಳe ಇ*ೋದು.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- Pಎಂ •3ೕ&ಾ3ಂ      ನ ಏ_ ೆಲಸ             ಾ    3 &ೊ[C"ಾ{ Sೕನು =ಾ/      ಾತು ೇ ಎ
    ಾqÉÝ ಅಂತ &ೊ[Cಲ{ ನನ&ೆ =ಾವ<ದಕೂ1 :ಾQೆadಂದ ಇ ;ೕS ಅವತುC ಾನು,

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- =ಾವ<ದದು`

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- =ಾ/        ಾತು ೇ ಏ_       ಾBೆ€ ಅಂತ &ೊ[C ೆ ನನ&ೆ ಎ"ಾ 7ತುC0ಟು9 ಇ ೊ ಬದು`
=ಾವನಂದು .ಾ ನ/ ಕ89P ೆ ಅಂತ &ೊ[C ೆ ನನ&ೆ.

                               ----        ----         ----

         ಅ ೇ   ನ    ಾಂಕ: 12/01/2026 ರಂದು ಮ ಾ ಹ 3:56 ಗಂ ೆ ಸಮಯದ                  *ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ
ರವರು ಮತುC !3ೕಮ[ ಅಮೃತ + ?ೌ*ಾಯುಕCರು !ಡ ಘಟ9 ನಗರಸuೆ ರವರು                     ಾತ ಾ ರುವ 3 ೇ
ಆ       ೕವನು ಪ !ೕ ಸ"ಾ#

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- ಹ"ೋ

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ :- ಆ .ಾ ನ/ ¥À¸ÀÖ°è. ಎ :ೊCೕ ಅ°.., ಕ89P ೆ3 ಸ             ಇಲ ಅಂತ ಅಂ ೆ3 2ೇ      ;ೕS
ಮನುಷ ಆಗ¯Áè 2ೇ [`S,

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- ಸ       ಾ_ }ೆ>   ಾ PCS ಸ/
                                             15



     *ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ :- ಎಷು9 ಕಟ9.ೇಕು ಈಗ ಪT`ಷ_ ದುಡು€

     ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- ಪT`ಷ_ ಅ             ಅದು ಎ   ೆ ಅಂತ }ೆ>        ಾ PCS. "ೇಟ/ ೋBೊ ೆ 2ೇ    ಅವರು
     =ಾರು ಇನೂ "ೇಟ/ ೊ89ಲ,

     *ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ಶುಕ3kಾರ ಬಂದು "ೇಟ/ ೊ89*ೋದು CPÀß"ೆ• -ಂ@ ಇ                   ೆ ನನ ತ3,

     ಅಮೃತ&ೌಡ:- ಎ       ೊ89 ಾ;*ೆ.

     *ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- "ೇಟ/ ೊಟ9*ೋ CPÀß"ೆ• -ಂ@ ಇ           ೆ.

     ಅಮೃತ&ೌಡ: }ೆ>       ಾ CೕS ಇ . ಎಂದು      ಾತ ಾ ರುವ ಆ           ೕ ಇರುತC ೆ,"


The afore-quoted conversation, in turn, leads the complainant to

lodge a complaint, which culminates in registration of a crime in

Crime No.9 of 2026. The complaint reads as follows:


                         "ನಗರಸuಾ ಾ=ಾ`ಲಯ, !ಡಘಟ9, Mಕ1ಬQಾIಪ<ರ +"ೆ


     E-Mail:[email protected]               Ph.& Fax: 08158/254404/254405

     ಸಂƒೆ : ನ ಾ! | Pwಾ/P.ಆ//146/2025-26                                 ಾಂಕ:-14/01/2026



     ರವ &ೆ,
              ಆರ...ಕ ಉಪ S ೕ...ಕರು
              !ಡಘಟ9 ನಗರ • ೕ] ‡ಾˆೆ
              !ಡಘಟ9.

     ರವ ಂದ


              ಅಮೃತ.+,
              ?ೌರಯುಕCರು, !ಡಘಟ9 ನಗರ ಸuೆ,
              !ಡಘಟ9,
                                       16



           y.ೈh ನಂ : 7022218922

  ಾನ *ೆ,

   jಷಯ: ಅkಾಚ ಶಬ;ಗ ಂದ Sಂದ ೆ            ಾ , ನನ ಕತ`ವ ೆ1 ಅ €ಪ P .ೆದ        ೆ 2ಾ7ರುವ ಬ&ೆ^.
                                        *****

           !ಡಘಟ9      ನಗರದ     ?ೌ*ಾಯುಕC*ಾದ      ಅಮೃತ.+,         ಆದ       ಾನು     ತಮa
Skೇ P ೊಳeIವ< ೇ ೆಂದ*ೆ,      ಾನು     ಾಂಕ:30/06/2025      ಂದ !ಡಘಟ9 ನಗರ ಸuೆಯ
?ೌ*ಾಯುಕC*ಾ# ಾಯ`Sವ`|ಸು[Cರು:ೆCೕ ೆ.           ಾಂಕ:13/01/2026 ರಂದು !ಡಘಟ9 ನಗರದ ೆಹರೂ

73ೕBಾಂಗಣದ "ಕh9" ಕನ ಡ ಚಲನMತ3ದ ಪ3yೕಷ_ ಇkೆಂ@ ಾಯ`ಕ3ಮವನು !3ೕ.*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ ರವರ ಮುಂ ಾಳತ{ದ ಹTa ೊಂ ದು;, !3ೕ.*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ ರವರ uಾವMತ3ವ<ಳI ?ೆ>E ಗಳನು !ಡಘಟ9 ನಗರ ಾದ ಂತ ಅಳವ Pರು:ಾC*ೆ. ನಗರದ ೋ ೆ ವೃತCದ ಸಂ}ಾರ ೆ1 ಅಡ€"ಾ# ?ೇ>E ಗಳನು ಅಳವ Pದು;, ಸದ ?ೇ>Eಗಳe kಾಹನಗ &ೆ :ಾ# ೆಳ&ೆ 0 ;ದು;, ಇದನು ಕಂಡ Gಾವ`ಜSಕರು ನನ&ೆ ಾ|[ Sೕ ರು:ಾC*ೆ. ಅದನು ನಮa ಆ*ೋಗ S ೕ...ಕ*ಾದ !3ೕ.ಕೃಷŠಮೂ[` ರವರ ಮುƒಾಂತರ :ೆರವ< ಾ P ಕ‹ೇ ಯ ಇ ಸ"ಾ#ರುತC ೆ. ಈ jಷಯನು [ ದು ೊಂಡ !3ೕ.*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡರು ರವರು ಾಂಕ:12.01.2026 ರಂದು ಮ ಾ ಹ 03:45 ಗಂ ೆ ಸಮಯದ y.ೈh ದೂರkಾŒ ಸಂƒೆ :9900004501 ನಂಬ Sಂದ ನನ y.ೈh ದೂರkಾŒ ಸಂƒೆ : 7022218922 ನಂಬರ&ೆ ಕ*ೆ ಾ "=ಾವ ಸೂQೆ ಮಗ ?ೇ>E ಅನು 0MNದು;, ಕೂಡ"ೇ ಸದ ¥ÉèPïìUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¯Éèà ಮರು Gಾ•Zಸ.ೇಕು ಎಂದು ನನ&ೆ ಧ«ÄÌ 2ಾ7, ನನ ನು ಎದುರು 2ಾ7 ೊಂಡ*ೆ ಅನುಭjಸ.ೇ ಾ#ರು:ೆC ನಮa :ಾಲೂಕು 0ಟು9 ಓಡ.ೇಕು, =ಾವ ೋ 2ೆhC ಇ_E?ೆಕ9/ ಅವನಮ ೆ ೕ ೇಯ, ಜನಗಳ ೈಯ 2ೊBೆಸು:ೆCೕ ೆ. ಆವತುC ಆ ಸೂQೆ ಮಗನ ?ೇ>E ಕ89 ;ೕ , ನನ ?ೇ>E ಗಳನು 0MNದ*ೆ .ೆಂ7 ಹಚುN:ೆCೕ ೆ. =ಾವ ಸೂQೆ ಮಗ 0MNದು;, ಆ .ೋ ಮಗ ಸೂQೆ ಮಗ ಎಂ.ಎh ಎ .ಾ ನ/ ಕ89P ;ೕ=ಾ ಎಂದು ೆಟ9 ಾತುಗ ಂದ ಏಕವಚನದ ನನ ನು ಸಂuೋ P .ೈದು, 31 kಾಡ`ಗ ಂದ ಜನರನು ಕಳe|P .ೆಂ7 ಇಟು9 ಸುಟು9 2ಾಕುವ< ಾ# ಮತುC ಜನಗಳನು - Sನ jರುzÀÞ ಎ[Cಕ89 ಚಪo dಂದ 2ೊBೆP. ನಗರದ wಾಂ[ ಸುವ ವGೆ•&ೆ ಭಂಗವ<ಂಟು ಾಡುವ< ಾ# ಪ3}ೋದ ೆ ಾಡುವ ೕ[ಯ ಾತ ಾ ನನ ಸ ಾ` ಕತ`ವ ೆ1 ಅ €ಪ P, Sನ ನು ಈ :ಾಲೂ7Sಂದ ಒದು; ಓ ಸುವ< ಾ# .ೆದ ೆ 2ಾ7ರು:ಾC*ೆ." ಇದ ಂದ ನನ&ೆ ನನ ಕುಟುಂಬ ೆ1 [ೕವ3kಾದ ಅŽತ ಉಂ ಾ#ದು;, ಭಯ•ೕತQಾ#ರು:ೆCೕ ೆ. ಇದ ಂದ ಾನು ಾನPಕkಾ# ಜಜ• ೕತQಾ# ಾನ2ಾS ಉಂ ಾ#ರುತC ೆ ಮತುC ನನ Pಬrಂ ಗ ಗೂ ಸ2ಾ ೆಲಸ ಾಡಲು ಾನPಕkಾ# ¸ÉÜöÊಯ` ಕQೆದು ೊಂ ರು:ಾC*ೆ ಮತುC ಾನು ೇಂದ3 Gಾ•ನದ ಒಬrQೇ ಇರುವ<ದ ಂದ ಮುಂ ನ ನಗಳ ನBೆಯುವ ಆಗು-2ೋಗುಗ &ೆ !3ೕ.*ಾ+ೕ,&ೌಡ*ೇ ೇರ 2ೊˆೆ&ಾರ ಆಗು:ಾC*ೆ. ಆದುದ ಂದ ಸದ ವ 7Cಯ jರುದ; ಾನೂನು ೕ:ಾ ಕ3ಮ ಜರು#ಸಲು 2ಾಗೂ ನನಗೂ ಮತುC ನನ Pಬrಂ ಗೂ ಸೂಕC ರ...ˆೆ ಒದ#ಸಲು ತಮa ೋರು:ೆCೕ ೆ.

"ವಂದ ೆಗQೆl ಂ &ೆ"

ತಮa jwಾ{P ಸ|/-

?ೌರಯುಕCರು, ನಗರಸuೆ !ಡಘಟ9

ಾಂಕ 14.01.2026 ರಂದು ಮ'ಾ ಹ 3 ಗಂ ೆ&ೆ Z=ಾ` ಾರರು oÁuÉUÉ 2ಾಜ*ಾ# Sೕ ದ ದೂರನು ಪBೆದು ‡ಾˆಾ yಸಂ 09/2026 ಕಲಂ 132, 351(3), 224, 352, 56 BNS ೕತ ಪ3ಕರಣ ಾಖಲು ಾ ೆ"

9. The allegation against the petitioner presently stand for

offences punishable under Sections 132, 224, 352, 351(3) and 56

of the BNS. Subsequently, with the permission of the learned

Magistrate, an offence under the provisions of the Karnataka Open

Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 has also been

invoked. What is of significance is that, the petitioner even

before the ink on the crime could metaphorically dry, has

approached this Court calling in question the very

registration of the crime, primarily on the ground that the facts

would not attract Section 132 of the BNS, which is Section 353 of

the earlier regime, the IPC. On the score that the Apex Court has

interpreted the scope and ingredients of Section 353 and has held

that the use of criminal force against a public servant during

execution of his duty alone would constitute an offence thereunder.

Be that as it may. Whether the offences presently invoked are

impeccably laid or whether alteration/addition of sections is

warranted, is not a matter for adjudication at this threshold

stage. What is presently before the Court is merely a

registration of the crime. It is always open to the

Investigating Officer, in the course of investigation, to seek

appropriate permission from the jurisdictional Court, for

addition of offences, should the material so warrant.

10. A plain reading of the complaint and the conversation,

however, would unmistakably reveal that the petitioner has spoken

in a manner that strikes at the dignity of a woman or even other

public servants. Whether the remarks were made against a public

servant or otherwise is not determinative for that purpose. The

language and tenor attributed to the petitioner would, prima facie,

disclose offences under Section 79 of the BNS. Section 79 of the

BNS corresponds to Section 509 of the IPC. Section 79 of the BNS

reads as follows:

"79. Word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty of a woman - Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object in any form, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.

The provision is explicit and unequivocal. Section 79 indicates that

whoever by words, sound, gesture or act intends to insult the

modesty of a woman would be punishable with imprisonment which

may extend upto 3 years besides fine. It is a cognizable offence. It

is difficult to comprehend as to how the prosecution has not

invoked this offence, notwithstanding the nature of the

conversation attributed to the petitioner, as it was against a

woman who is a public servant. A person who once held the

status of a lawmaker is expected to be circumspect and

restrained in his speech, particularly when addressing a

woman, a public servant who is only discharging her

statutory duty.

11. It is in public domain or a matter of public

knowledge that banners and flexes, whether for film

promotion or otherwise, erected indiscriminately across

cities create menace to the public, impede movement, and

erode civic aesthetics. The State appears to have remained

blissfully indifferent to the rampant proliferation of such

banners and flexes across public spaces. Such acts would

squarely fall within the ambit of Karnataka Open Places

(Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981, yet action is

seldom taken against such disfigurement. It is high time that

the State wakes up and enforces the law in earnest against

unauthorised banners, placards, and flexes.

12. The complainant in Crime No.9 of 2026, has prima facie

diligently performed her duty. When a public servant performs

lawful duties, no individual can claim license to intimidate or

abuse such public servant for mere discharge of public

functions. Therefore, abuse directed at a public servant, with

a view to deter or obstruct them from performing official

duties, would undoubtedly attract penal consequences. In

the present matter, the complainant is not merely a public

servant, but also a woman and no man can be permitted to

speak in the language so offensive, so as to be beyond the

pale of civility and lawful tolerance. At the very least, the

language employed deserves investigation, as it is settled

principle of law that an FIR is not an encyclopedia of offences. In

this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the

Apex Court in STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. KUNWAR

SINGH1, wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:

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

8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, we are of the view that the High Court has transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC by enquiring into the merits of the allegations at the present stage. The fact that the respondent was a signatory to the cheques is not in dispute. This, in fact, has been adverted to in the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has also noted that a person who is required to approve a financial proposal is duty bound to observe due care and responsibility. There are specific allegations in regard to the irregularities which have been committed in the course of the work of the 'Janani Mobility Express' under the National Rural Health Mission. At this stage, the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial court would do in the course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced. In doing so, the High Court has exceeded the well-settled limits on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. A detailed enquiry into the merits of the allegations was not warranted. The FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia, particularly, in a matter involving financial irregularities in the course of the administration

2021 SCC OnLine SC 3668

of a public scheme. A final report has been submitted under Section 173 of CrPC, after investigation."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court in KUNWAR SINGH has held that FIR is not an

encyclopedia. Investigation must ordinarily be permitted to

proceed, save in exceptional circumstances carved out by judicial

postulates.

13. This Court also notices that Sections 504 and 509 of the

IPC/now 79 and 352 of BNS have been interpreted by the Apex

Court in a manner that, even use of filthy language depending upon

the context and intent, may constitute an offence of insulting the

modesty of a woman. The modesty of a woman is an attribute

associated with womanhood as a class and that the ultimate test is,

whether the act is capable of shocking the sense of decency or

dignity of a woman, gazed by contemporary societal standards. The

abuses hurled in the facts and circumstances, require investigation

in the least.

14. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court cannot at this

stage, embark upon an evaluation of whether Section 132

BNS or any other section is ultimately sustainable, since the

investigation has hardly commenced. The crime was

registered on 14-01-2026 and the petition is preferred on

19-01-2026 within 5 days. The petitioner, therefore, seeks

interference at this stage when investigation is yet to

meaningfully unfold. The Apex Court in NEEHARIKA

INFRASTRUCTURE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA2, lays down

the principles of interference by this Court in exercise of its

jurisdiction under 482 of the Cr.P.C. The conclusions laid down by

the Apex Court are as follows:

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

              Conclusions

33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or "no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the investigation or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:

(2021)19 SCC 401

33.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence.

33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences.

33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.

33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the "rarest of rare cases" (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.

33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.

33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule.

33.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere.

33.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping.

33.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences.