Criminal Petition No. 8482 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13766 CRL.P No. 8482 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8482 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MR. SHIVA KUMAR SONNAPPA, S/O LATE H. SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT C/O HAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, NO.11, SRI BYRESHWARA NILAYA, DODDA GUBBI MAIN ROAD, NEAR KRC BUS STOP, BENGALURU - 560 077. 2. MR. MOHAN KUMAR SONNAPPA, S/O LATE H. SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT C/O HAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, NO.11, SRI BYRESHWARA NILAYA, DODDA GUBBI MAIN ROAD, NEAR KRC BUS STOP, BENGALURU - 560 077. 3. MR. SUNIL KUMAR SONNAPPA, S/O LATE H. SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT C/O HAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, NO.11, SRI BYRESHWARA NILAYA, DODDA GUBBI MAIN ROAD, NEAR KRC BUS STOP, BENGALURU - 560 077.
Legal Reasoning
Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13766 CRL.P No. 8482 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
4. MR. ANIL KUMAR SONNAPPA, S/O LATE H. SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT C/O HAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, NO.11, SRI BYRESHWARA NILAYA, DODDA GUBBI MAIN ROAD, NEAR KRC BUS STOP, BENGALURU - 560 077. 5. MR. KEETHI SAGAR B.R., S/O SMT. HEMAVATHI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.424, 10TH MAIN, HBR 4TH BLOCK, HENNUR CROSS, KASABA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU CITY. (BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION, BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, (STATE PP), HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU. 2. RAMESH GOWDA H.M., S/O SRI. MUNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.6, HMR RAMYA SUKRUTHA NIVASA, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, BYRAWESHWARA LAYOUT, HENNUR BANDE, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560 043. …PETITIONERS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13766 CRL.P No. 8482 of 2024 PRESENTLY SERVING AS MLC KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. (BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT.DEVI SOWMYA L., ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT, IN PCR NO.22190/2021 AND FILING THE CHARGE SHEET BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND TAKING THE SAID CHARGE SHEET REGISTERED CRL.CASE [CC] NO.11787/2023 BY THE VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU, FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 201, 504 AND 506 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners, who are facing trial for offences under Sections 341, 201, 504, and 506 of the IPC, are before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that the accused were called for a press meeting concerning the alleged grabbing of land by the complainant at the Press Club situated at Cubbon Park. When the complainant attempted to enter the Press Club, the petitioners acting as the accused wrongfully restrained him from entering, abused him with vulgar language, and threatened him with dire consequences. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13766 CRL.P No. 8482 of 2024 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, except for omnibus and general allegations, there is no specific overt act detailing how and in what manner each of the accused wrongfully abused the complainant with vulgar language or threatened him with dire consequences. He further submitted that there is no material evidence to substantiate that the petitioners used criminal force or assaulted the complainant to restrain him from proceeding further. Therefore, in the absence of essential elements constituting the alleged offences, the continuation of the proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 4. Sri K.N. Phanindra, learned senior counsel representing the petitioners, submitted that the charge sheet material, along with the statements of the complainant and eyewitnesses to the incident, clearly establishes that the petitioners wrongfully restrained the complainant, abused him with vulgar language, and threatened him with dire consequences. This, according to him, clearly establishes the commission of the alleged offences. Therefore, the veracity of the alleged offences can only be considered at the time of trial. Hence, he sought the dismissal of the petition. 5. The arguments of the learned counsel for both parties have been duly considered. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13766 CRL.P No. 8482 of 2024 6. A perusal of the statements of the complainant and the eyewitnesses indicates that the allegations against the petitioners are general and lack specificity. In the absence of any specific overt act detailing how and in what manner each of the accused abused the complainant with vulgar language or threatened him with dire consequences, the Trial Court cannot frame a specific charge. 7. Essential elements to constitute an offence Under Section 504 IPC . (cid:1) Intentional insult by words, gestures, or acts. (cid:1) Intent or knowledge that it may provoke breach of peace. (cid:1) Aim to incite the person to break peace or commit an offence. 8. Essentials Under Section 506 IPC (Criminal Intimidation) (cid:1) Threat of injury to person, reputation, property, or related persons. (cid:1) Intent to cause alarm or force someone to act or refrain from an act. 9. Mere allegations of insult , without corroborative evidence demonstrating that due to intentional insult there was a breach of public peace or inciting the complainant - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13766 CRL.P No. 8482 of 2024 to breach public peace or committing an offence would not suffice to constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC. 10. Similarly mere allegations of threat, without corroborative evidence demonstrating that the complainant was indeed indeed alarmed or compelled to act or refrain from acting in any particular manner, cannot suffice to attract the provision of Section 506 IPC. 11. To constitute an offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC, “a person must have voluntarily obstructed another person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed; such action is said to constitute wrongful restraint.” 12. In the present case, the complainant and the eyewitnesses have stated that all the accused restrained the complainant from proceeding further. However, there is no specific overt act attributed to each accused detailing how and in what manner they restrained the complainant from proceeding further. Furthermore, there is no allegation that the petitioners deliberately or knowingly that their acts would result in obstructing the complainant from proceeding further . 13. In the absence of essential elements required to establish the commission of the alleged offences, the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13766 CRL.P No. 8482 of 2024 continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following order:
Decision
ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.11787/2023 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2