Click the Play button to listen to article

The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed First Information Report (FIR) and all further proceedings initiated against RTI activist Snehamayi Krishna, registered on a complaint made by Roopa M J who works as Secretary of the Sri Chamundeshwari development Authority, accusing Krishna of obstructing her in doing government duty and shouting at her.

A single judge bench of Justice Rajesh Rai K, allowed the petition filed by Krishna and quashed the offence registered against him in 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 132 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from duty) and Section 351 (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha.

The court said “It can be gathered that the complaint is filed by R2 (Roopa) as a counterblast to the complaint filed against her by the petitioner.”

As per the complaint filed by Roopa with the Krishnaraja police in Mysuru on December 14, 2024, while she was discharging her duty at her office, Krishna had entered her office along with the police and the police had informed her that Krishna has given a complaint alleging that sarees worth lakhs of rupees, donated as offerings to the deity Chamundeshwari, were being misappropriated.

It was alleged that at that time Krishna who was standing besides the police had in a loud voice threatened her and allegedly said that he would teach her a lesson and he has already filed a complaint against then Chief Minister, Siddaramaiah.

Senior Advocate Arun Shyam appearing for the petitioner argued that on going through the complaint averments it can be seen that absolutely no offence has been made out against the petitioner. Further there is a two days delay in lodging the complaint and no explanation is given by the complaint for it. Further, it was argued that the present complaint is filed as a counterblast to the complaint filed by petitioner against Roopa.

The government advocate opposed the plea saying that the investigation is at nascent stage and complaint averment disclose that petitioner had threatened the complainant There is also CCTv footage, about the incident.

The bench noted that the complaint does not disclose that petitioner made an assault or used criminal force or threat with an intention to outrage her modesty. The only allegation is that the petitioner had in a loud voice said he will teach her a lesson.

Referring to the Apex court judgment in the case of K Dhananjaya Versus Cabinet secretary SLP 5905/2022 wherein it has been held that the shouting and threatening the staff, will not amount to any assault as described in Section 353 of IPC and there must be a positive act by the offender to attract the offence, the high court said,

“Admittedly there is no criminal force or assault is made by the petitioner. As such Section 132 of BNS is not attracted. Admittedly, there are no abusive words used by the petitioner against the complaint and he has not threatened the respondent with dire consequences.”

Noting that there was a delay of two days in lodging the complaint against the petitioner, the bench said, “I am of the considered view that entire chargesheet allegations and complaint averments taken on face value no offence is made out against the petitioner. As such the continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and FIR and further proceedings are quashed against the petitioner.”

Appearance: Senior Advocate Arun Shyam a/w Advocate NISHANTH S K for Petitioner.

Tags: