Mere Raising Of Voice Not An Offence Under Section 353 IPC Unless Assault Or Criminal Force Is Alleged: Karnataka High Court
A head constable of Police filed a complaint against a home guard, alleging that he raised his voice at him.
The Karnataka High Court High Court has held that for an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1908 (IPC) to be established, there must be an allegation of assault or use of criminal force against a public servant, and that merely raising of one's voice, without any physical force or assault, would not attract the provisions of the section.
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “The summary of the findings of the charge sheet, as also, the statement of all the witnesses are unequivocal that the only allegation against the petitioner is speaking to the 2nd respondent/complainant by raising his voice. This would, in the considered view of this Court, not meet the ingredients that are necessary for an offence to become punishable under Section 353 of the IPC.”
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Prashant S. Kadadevar, while High Court Government Pleader Jairam Siddi appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
A complaint was filed by a head constable, against the Petitioner, a home guard, alleging that he raised his voice while demanding certain documents. The police conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet against the Petitioner and the Principal Civil Judge registered the complaint for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the IPC. The Petitioner approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking to quash the proceedings against him.
The Petitioner averred that except for raising his voice, there were no other allegations against him, and that the incident had been blown out of proportion.
The Respondents submitted that there were five eye witnesses to the incident and therefore, would warrant a trial for the Petitioner to come out clean.
Reasoning of the Court
The issue before the Court for consideration was whether the Petitioner should be tried for an offence punishable under Section 353 of the IPC.
The Court, upon considering the submissions and perusing the record, 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.”
The Bench referred to the decision of the Apex Court in K Dhananjay v. State of Karnataka (Cabinet Secretary) (2022), wherein it was held that unless was an allegation of assault or usage of criminal force against the accused, the accused cannot be tried for an offence under Section 353 of IPC.
Adverting to Section 506 of the IPC the Court noted, “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. In that light permitting further trial against the petitioner would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.”
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the Petitioner pending before the Principal Civil Judge.
Cause Title: Ramesh s/o Krishnappa Karoshi v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:4218)
