Mere Use Of Abusive Language Not By Itself Intentional Insult U/S 504 IPC: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a case registered by the police against an accused who while being apprehended for his involvement in another case allegedly abused the police in filthy language and tried to assault them and thereby obstructed them from discharging their duties.A single judge, Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowing the petition filed by Anumandala Rajesh Reddy quashed...
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a case registered by the police against an accused who while being apprehended for his involvement in another case allegedly abused the police in filthy language and tried to assault them and thereby obstructed them from discharging their duties.
A single judge, Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowing the petition filed by Anumandala Rajesh Reddy quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Sections 353 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 504 pertains to Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
It said, “It is not stated in the complaint the nature of abusive language used by the accused. The allegations are vague in nature. Further, mere use of abusive language would not by itself attract the ingredients of Section 504 IPC.”
The police claimed that on 4.11.2020, when the complainant/PSI of Channapatna East Police Station and his staff were trying to apprehend the petitioner/accused in connection with a case (Cr.No.102/2020) registered with their police station, the petitioner herein abused them in filthy language and tried to assault them and thereby obstructed them from discharging their duties. Thereafter another FIR Cr.No.103/2020 under Sections 353 and 504 IPC was registered against him.
The bench on going through the complaint noted that vague allegations are made that the accused abused the complainant and other police officials in filthy language and tried to assault them in order to escape and thereby obstructed them from discharging their duties as a public servant.
Then it said, “It is not stated as to the exact words spoken by the petitioner to abuse the complainant and other police officials and the use of criminal force. It is not the case of prosecution that the petitioner escaped after trying to assault the complainant and other police officials or caused any injuries to the police.”
Allowing the petition the court held, “Having perused the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the averments in the complaint if taken on its face value does not fulfill the ingredients of the offence alleged and therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed.”
Appearance: Advocate Ramakrishna Srinivasan for Petitioner.
Additional SPP Asma Kouser for R1.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
Case Title: Anumandala Rajesh Reddy AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8897 OF 2023