The Karnataka High Court declined to dismiss a criminal case against C. Ganesh Narayan, the director of C. Krishniah Chetty & Company Private Limited, and his wife. They were accused of using pepper spray on the complainant, who, along with other security personnel, was allegedly attempting to interfere with the petitioners' property.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition and said “The 2nd petitioner could not have used pepper spray as private defence, as prima facie there was no imminent threat or danger caused to her life. Therefore, the case at hand would require investigation in the least.”

According to the prosecution, the complainant, Rajdeep Das, is an employee of the company. On January 21, 2023, it seems that Vinod Hayagriv filed an injunction suit against the first petitioner. The aim was to prevent the petitioner from making any alterations, constructing walls, partitions, or other structures that would impede the unrestricted movement of people and vehicles around the building.

As per the mentioned court order dated March 28, 2023, an interim injunction was granted against all parties involved.

Following the acquisition of the interim order on April 7, 2023, Vinod Hayagriv attempted to erect a wall to seal the gate of the petitioners. It was subsequent to this action that the dispute between the two parties arose and seems to have escalated unfavorably.

Allegedly, on April 29, 2023, the petitioners engaged in a verbal and physical altercation, including the use of pepper spray, when employees of Vinod Hayagriv attempted to interfere with the petitioners' property. Consequently, an offense was registered under sections 323, 324, 341, 427, 504, 506, and 34 of the IPC.

The petitioners contended that they resorted to pepper spray as a means of self-defense, asserting its protection under Section 100 of the IPC.

It was indicated that their action was necessitated by the interference of the second respondent and other security personnel with the petitioners' property. Additionally, it was noted that the second petitioner had sustained a knee injury. Consequently, the petitioners filed a complaint, leading to the registration of a case, identified as Crime No. 43 of 2023.

Highlighting the argument regarding the use of pepper spray for self-defense, it was asserted that pepper spray does not qualify as a dangerous weapon, thereby negating the possibility of it constituting an offense under Section 324 of the IPC.

The court said “There is no determination by any law being laid down in this country with regard to usage of pepper spray being a dangerous weapon. But, a Court in the United States of America in PEOPLE v.SANDEL 84 N.Y.S. 3d 340 (N.Y. Sup.Ct.2018) has held that noxious chemical sprays, like pepper sprays, are dangerous weapons.”

Appearance: Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta for Advocate Krutika Raghavan for Petitioners.

AAG S.A.Ahmed a/w HCGP Manjunath K for R1.

Senior Advocate D.R.Ravishankar a/w Manjunath K V For R2.

Case Title: C Ganesh Narayan & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.10923 OF 2023