Karnataka High Court: ‘Raising Voice Against Public Servant Not an Offence Under Section 353 IPC
Kiran Raj
The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, has quashed criminal proceedings against a home guard accused of obstructing a public servant in the discharge of duties. The single-judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the allegations against the petitioner did not meet the legal requirements under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which mandates the use of criminal force or assault to deter a public servant from performing official duties. The court further noted that the charge under Section 506 IPC, pertaining to criminal intimidation, also lacked the necessary elements under the law.
The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 1190 of 2023, pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi. The petitioner, a home guard, was accused of raising his voice and demanding certain documents from the complainant, a police officer. However, the court concluded that these allegations did not constitute an offence under the cited provisions of the IPC.
The case originated from an incident on February 21, 2023, at the Jamkhandi Town Police Station. The complainant, a police inspector, alleged that the petitioner, who was a home guard, demanded certain documents in a raised voice and allegedly used abusive language. Following this, a case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 24 of 2023 under Sections 353 and 506 IPC. The police conducted an investigation and subsequently filed a charge sheet, leading to the registration of C.C. No. 1190 of 2023.
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel, Sri Prashant S. Kadadevar, contended that the entire case was based on an exaggerated interpretation of the petitioner’s conduct. He argued that there was no physical assault or criminal force involved, which are necessary components of an offence under Section 353 IPC. Furthermore, he maintained that the petitioner’s act of raising his voice did not amount to criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.
The State, represented by High Court Government Pleader Sri Jairam Siddi, countered these claims, asserting that there were five eyewitnesses to the incident. The prosecution argued that the case should proceed to trial, where the petitioner could present his defense.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna examined the allegations, the charge sheet, and the statements of witnesses. The court noted that the sole allegation against the petitioner was that he had raised his voice while speaking to the complainant. Referring to the definition of assault under Section 353 IPC, the court observed:
"Section 353 mandates that a public servant should be stopped from performing duties by usage of criminal force. There is no allegation in the case at hand that the petitioner indulged in assault of a public servant or used criminal force which came in the way of the public servant performing her duties."
To substantiate its position, the court referred to a Supreme Court decision in K Dhananjay v. State of Karnataka (Cabinet Secretary), where the top court had held that merely shouting at public officials does not amount to assault under Section 353 IPC. The Supreme Court had ruled:
"On perusing the complaint, we find that none of the ingredients, as mentioned in Section 353 IPC, is reflected in the complaint letter. In other words, no offence under Section 353 IPC is made out in this case."
Applying the same reasoning, the Karnataka High Court concluded that the allegations against the petitioner did not fulfill the legal requirements for an offence under Section 353 IPC.
With respect to Section 506 IPC, the court examined the statutory definition of criminal intimidation under Section 503 IPC, which requires a specific threat of harm to a person’s body, reputation, or property. The court found no such threat in the allegations against the petitioner. Accordingly, it stated:
"None of the ingredients as obtaining in Section 503 of the IPC are even found. Therefore, the offence under Section 506 of the IPC is also not met."
Based on its findings, the court concluded that allowing the criminal trial to proceed would constitute an abuse of the legal process. Consequently, the court issued the following order:
(i) The criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C. No. 1190 of 2023 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi, stand quashed qua the petitioner.
Advocates Representing the Parties
- For the Petitioner: Sri Prashant S. Kadadevar
- For the State: Sri Jairam Siddi, High Court Government Pleader
Case Title: Ramesh S/o Krishnappa Karoshi v. The State of Karnataka
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:4218
Case Number: CRL.P No. 100090 of 2024
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
[Read/Download order]
