Bengaluru, March 15, 2025: The Karnataka High Court has clarified that merely raising one’s voice at a public servant does not constitute an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unless there is an allegation of assault or use of criminal force.
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed the criminal proceedings against a home guard who was accused of raising his voice at a head constable while demanding certain documents.
The Court observed that the essential ingredients of Section 353 IPC were not met, as there was no physical force or obstruction involved.
Court: No Offence Under Section 353 IPC Without Assault Or Criminal Force
Case Background
A head constable of police had lodged a complaint against the Petitioner, a home guard, alleging that he had raised his voice during an interaction regarding official documents.
Based on this complaint, the police conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet under Sections 353 and 506 IPC. Subsequently, the Principal Civil Judge registered the case against the Petitioner.
Challenging the proceedings, the Petitioner moved the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, seeking quashing of the case. He contended that apart from raising his voice, there were no allegations of assault or use of force, and the matter had been unnecessarily escalated.
The State Government Pleader argued that there were five eyewitnesses, warranting a trial to determine the truth.
Court’s Observations: Mere Raising Of Voice Not An Offence
The Karnataka High Court examined the statements of witnesses, summary of the charge sheet, and legal provisions before delivering its verdict. Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed:
“Section 353 IPC mandates that a public servant must be obstructed in performing their duty through the use of criminal force or assault. In the present case, there is no allegation that the petitioner indulged in assault or used criminal force.”
The Court also considered the Supreme Court’s ruling in K Dhananjay v. State of Karnataka (2022), which held that in the absence of an allegation of assault or force, an offence under Section 353 IPC cannot be made out.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the charges under Section 506 IPC (Criminal Intimidation) also lacked merit, as the essential ingredients under Section 503 IPC (which defines criminal intimidation) were not satisfied.
Verdict: Proceedings Quashed To Prevent Miscarriage Of Justice
Observing that allowing the trial to proceed would amount to an abuse of the legal process, the Court quashed the proceedings against the Petitioner pending before the Principal Civil Judge.
“Permitting further trial in this matter would result in a miscarriage of justice and an unnecessary burden on the legal system,” the Court remarked.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Ramesh s/o Krishnappa Karoshi v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
- Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
- Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:4218
Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…