High Court of Karnataka Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Accused in Section 504 IPC Case — Lack of Intent to Provoke Breach of Peace. Alleged Insulting Words Uttered in Private Setting Without Public Element Do Not Attract Section 504 IPC.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 16:17:06

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Sri Krishnappa M.T. and Sri Swamy, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 372/2020 (later renumbered as C.C. No. 30808/2021) pending before the XLII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Court for trial of cases against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs) at Bengaluru. The proceedings arose out of Crime No. 181/2020 registered by Turuvekere Police for offences punishable under Sections 34 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case was based on a complaint by respondent No. 2, Sri Vishwanath, alleging that the petitioners had insulted him by using abusive language. The petitioners contended that the allegations did not constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC as there was no intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, and the incident occurred in a private setting without any public element. The State opposed the petition, arguing that the allegations prima facie disclosed the offence. The High Court examined the essential ingredients of Section 504 IPC, which requires intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace or knowledge that it is likely to cause breach of peace. The court found that the complaint and charge sheet did not allege any such intent or knowledge, and the incident occurred in a private setting without any public element. Relying on the principle that continuation of proceedings where no offence is made out is an abuse of process, the court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Section 504 IPC - Intentional Insult - Essential Ingredients - For an offence under Section 504 IPC, the prosecution must establish intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace or knowledge that it is likely to cause breach of peace - Mere abusive words without such intent do not constitute the offence - Held that the allegations must show a clear intention to provoke breach of peace (Paras 5-7).

B) Criminal Procedure - Section 482 CrPC - Quashing of Proceedings - Inherent Power - High Court can quash proceedings if the allegations do not disclose any offence or are an abuse of process of court - Held that where the complaint lacks essential ingredients of the offence, continuation of proceedings is an abuse of process (Para 8).

C) Criminal Law - Section 504 IPC - Private Setting - Absence of Public Element - The alleged incident occurred in a private setting without any public element - Words uttered in private, even if insulting, do not attract Section 504 IPC as there is no likelihood of breach of public peace - Held that the offence under Section 504 IPC requires a public element or likelihood of public disturbance (Paras 5-7).

Issue of Consideration

Whether the allegations in the complaint and charge sheet constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, warranting continuation of criminal proceedings.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 372/2020 (later C.C. No. 30808/2021) pending before the XLII Addl. CMM (Special Court for trial of cases against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs) at Bengaluru, and set aside the order dated 17.10.2020 taking cognizance.

Law Points

Section 504 IPC requires intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace
lack of public element negates offence
quashing under Section 482 CrPC for abuse of process

Case Details

NC: 2024:KHC:44844

CRL.P No. 13215 of 2023

2024-11-07

M. Nagaprasanna

NC: 2024:KHC:44844

Smt. Nandini B. for Sri. Bhargav G. for petitioners; Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, Addl. SPP for respondent No. 1

Sri. Krishnappa M.T. and Sri. Swamy

State of Karnataka and Sri. Vishwanath

Nature of Litigation

Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 372/2020 for offences under Sections 34 and 504 IPC.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought to set aside the order dated 17.10.2020 taking cognizance and quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 372/2020 (later C.C. No. 30808/2021).

Filing Reason

Petitioners alleged that the complaint and charge sheet did not disclose any offence under Section 504 IPC as there was no intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, and the incident occurred in a private setting.

Previous Decisions

The Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere, took cognizance on 17.10.2020 in C.C. No. 372/2020 (arising out of Crime No. 181/2020 of Turuvekere Police).

Issues

Whether the allegations in the complaint and charge sheet constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC read with Section 34 IPC? Whether the continuation of proceedings is an abuse of process warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the allegations do not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 504 IPC as there is no intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, and the incident occurred in a private setting without any public element. Respondent No. 1 (State) argued that the allegations prima facie disclose the offence and the petition should be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

For an offence under Section 504 IPC, the prosecution must establish intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace or knowledge that it is likely to cause breach of peace. Mere abusive words without such intent, especially in a private setting without any public element, do not constitute the offence. Continuation of proceedings where no offence is made out is an abuse of process warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.372/2020 arising out of crime No.181/2020 for offences punishable under Sections 34 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short). Heard learned counsel Smt. Nandini B., for learned counsel, Sri. Bhargav G., appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

Procedural History

Crime No. 181/2020 was registered by Turuvekere Police for offences under Sections 34 and 504 IPC. The Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere, took cognizance on 17.10.2020 in C.C. No. 372/2020. The case was later transferred to the XLII Addl. CMM (Special Court for trial of cases against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs) at Bengaluru and renumbered as C.C. No. 30808/2021. The petitioners filed CRL.P No. 13215 of 2023 under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings.