In a recent legal development, the Karnataka High Court has delivered a verdict that may establish a precedent for forthcoming cases. Responding to a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the Court has quashed charges against the accused parties concerning offenses outlined in Sections 448, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 34.
The case under consideration revolves around individuals identified as accused numbers 1 to 3. These individuals have contested the order of taking cognizance and the issuance of process, both of which were dated 13-10-2020. The charges brought against them are related to alleged infringements of Sections 448 (house trespass), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 34 (criminal act committed by several individuals in furtherance of common intention).
The accused individuals, represented by their legal counsel, strongly asserted that the charges were unfounded and motivated by hidden agendas. They argued that the case primarily had a civil nature, suggesting that the charges were a means to unfairly pressure them in relation to a distinct civil lawsuit.
On the contraryt, respondent No.2, the complainant, insisted that the charges were legitimate and that the truthfulness of the accusations would be determined through the course of the trial.
The Court, in its deliberations, conducted an exhaustive examination of the charges and the pertinent legal provisions. Drawing on established legal precedents, the Court dissected the charges of intentional insult, criminal intimidation, and house trespass.
“A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the alleged incident took place on 12-5-2020 at about 2:00 p.m. … A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity,” the Court highlighted, referencing the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Madhusudhan Rao case (2008) 15 SCC 582.
Elaborating on the charges of intentional insult, the Court referenced the case of Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharasthra (2013) 14 SCC 44. “One has to read the complaint as a whole and, by doing so, if the Magistrate comes to a conclusion, prima facie, that there has been an intentional insult so as to provoke any person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, that is sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of Section 504 IPC,” the Court cited.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy