KIRTHI SARAASWATI vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
Reserved on : 28.08.2026
Pronounced on : 16.10.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 4603 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.KIRTHI S.SARASWATHI
W/O VIJAY DEEPAK
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
PERMANENT RESIDENT AT:
TH
NO.227, 6 MAIN, TATANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 092.
RESIDING AT:
RD
NO.16, 3 MAIN,
NEW MANJUNATHA LAYOUT,
RAMMURTHY NAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 016.
2. SAVITHRI S.,
W/O R.SATHYA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.227,
TH
6 MAIN, TATANAGAR,
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
- 2 -
BENGALURU – 560 092.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HRISHIKESH K., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KAPIL DIXIT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE HOUSE OFFICER,
KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. MS.G.THEJASWINI
D/O LATE H.GANGADHARAIAH
HAVING OFFICE AT:
M/S.THEJASWINI AND ASSOCIATES
TH
NO. 2390, E BLOCK, 13 MAIN,
TH
14 CROSS, SAHAKARA NAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 092.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SMT.G.THEJASWINI, R-2, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
THE BNSS., PRAYING TO (A) QUASH AND SET ASIDE SPL.C.
2163/2025 PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE CCH 71, CITY COURT
COMPLEX, BENGALURU, ARISING OUT OF THE SAID FIR AND
- 3 -
CHARGESHEET; (B) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT-POLICE NOT TO
TAKE ANY PRECIPITATIVE OR COERCIVE ACTION AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PRESENT PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.08.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are before the Court
calling in question proceedings in Special Case No.2163 of 2025
arising out of Crime No.216 of 2025 registered for offences
punishable under Sections 352 r/w 3(5) of the BNS and under
Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Act’ for short).
2. Heard Sri Hrishikesh K, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. G. Thejaswini,
respondent No.2, party in person.
- 4 -
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
st
The 1 petitioner’s husband initiates matrimonial and criminal
st
proceedings arising out of marital disputes between the two. The 1
nd
petitioner entrusted her case to the 2 respondent, a practicing
nd
Advocate. On a particular day i.e., 10-06-2025, the 2 respondent
st
informs the 1 petitioner that she will not be able to attend the
st
hearing in M.C. No.1505 of 2020 and asks the 1 petitioner to
appear and seek adjournment. It is alleged that two days later the
nd
2 respondent issues a NOC expressing anger and refuses to
provide the case documents. Alleging that the petitioners have
hurled abuses against the complainant, a complaint comes to be
st
registered in Crime No.216 of 2025. Later, the 1 petitioner
nd
communicates to the 2 respondent seeking refund of fee paid and
nd
blocking all communications. It is then, the 2 respondent
registers a complaint before the Directorate of Civil Rights
Enforcement alleging abuse by taking the name of the caste of the
complainant. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge
sheet in Special Case No.2163 of 2025. The registration of the
- 5 -
proceedings is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the
subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
vehemently contend that the allegations made against the
petitioners are on account of refund of fee that was sought by the
complainant, without there being any ingredients of the offence so
alleged against the petitioners. He would seek to place reliance
upon a plethora of judgments on the issue and submits that
permitting trial in the case at hand would become an abuse of the
process of law
nd
5. The 2 respondent appearing in person would take this
Court through the detailed statement of objections so filed
contending that the petitioners have hurled abuses on a particular
day against the complainant before other clients in her office.
Therefore, it is a place where the public has viewed hurling of
nd
abuses. The 2 respondent in person would further take this Court
through the WhatsApp communication between the parties to
demonstrate what was the attitude of the accused against the
- 6 -
complainant. Therefore, she would seek dismissal of the petition on
the score that it is a matter of trial for the petitioners to come out
clean in its full-blown form.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
complainant in person and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of
nd
events are all a matter of record. A case was entrusted to the 2
nd
respondent by the petitioners is an admitted fact. The 2
respondent could not attend the proceedings as she was off to
London on 08-09-2024. The dates and events that have happened
are narrated in the statement of objections. The events that have
happened from 26-09-2024 till the date of registration of crime, as
nd
narrated by the 2 respondent, are as follows:
08/09/2024 The Respondent No. 2 landed in London.
26/09/2024
at 2.55 a.m.
On the first day, Accused No. 1/Petitioner No. 1
contacted Respondent No. 2 via WhatsApp
messages and calls while Respondent No. 2 was
in London, United Kingdom.
29/09/2024 Respondent No. 2 returned to Bengaluru,
Karnataka, India
14/10/2024 The first meeting of Respondent No. 2 and
- 7 -
Accused/Petitioners at Respondent No. 2's office.
24/10/2024
at 1.02 am
Respondent No. 2 sent the application to Accused
No. 1/Petitioner No. 1 before filing to the Hon'ble
Court in M. C. No. 1505/2020 in the Hon'ble III
Addl., Family Court, Bengaluru.
24/10/2024 Respondent No. 2 along with Accused No.
1/Petitioner No. 1 appeared before the Hon'ble
Court of III Addl. Family Court, Bengaluru, in
case number M.C. No. 1505/2020, and filed NOC
Vakalat along with
i) IA No. 7 under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955
ii) IA No. 8 under Section 19 of the PWDV Act
read with the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
and
iii) Memo for withdrawal of IA No. 4, in the
presence of Accused No. 1/Petitioner No. 1.
13/01/2025 Respondent No. 2 attended the telephone call of
Accused No. 1/Petitioner No. 1 at midnight and
extended assistance in drafting her complaint.
Respondent No. 2 also spoke with Accused No.
1/Petitioner No. 1 at around 1:00 a.m. in
connection with the said complaint.
09/05/2025 Respondent No. 2 was hospitalized at Aster CMI
Hospital, Bellary Road, Bengaluru and underwent
treatment for Disc prolapse (Bilateral L5-S1 with
Left L4-L5 IVDP with radicular pain involving both
lower limbs)
19/05/2025 The first day when Accused No. 1/Petitioner No. 1
started harassing Respondent No. 2.
11/06/2025 Respondent No. 2 sent a memo of citation.
12/06/2025
at 8.17 a.m.
On this day, when Respondent No. 2 telephoned
Accused No. 1/Petitioner No. 1, the latter abused
Respondent No. 2 in filthy and derogatory
language and intentionally insulted and
humiliated Respondent No. 2 by referring to her
Scheduled Caste status in a caste-based and
abusive manner.
12/06/2025 The Respondent No. 2 attended case No.
1505/2020, tendered her arguments on IA No. 2.
18/06/2025 The Accused/Petitioners came to the office of
Respondent No. 2, abused and threatened her in
- 8 -
filthy and offensive language, and intentionally
subjected her to caste-based abuse and
harassment in the presence of the other clients
present in her office, thereby causing humiliation
and intimidation.
On the same day, Respondent No. 2 issued a No
Objection Vakalath in favour of Accused No.
1/Petitioner No. 1 in M.C. No. 1505/2020,
pending before the Hon'ble III Additional Family
Court, Bengaluru.
19/06/2025 After obtaining the No Objection Vakalath on
18.06.2025, Accused No. 1/Petitioner No. 1
contacted and sent messages to the colleagues of
Respondent No. 2, spreading false and
defamatory information about her.
20/06/2025 Accused No. 1/Petitioner No. 1, along with others,
posted false and defamatory reviews on the
Google business profile of Respondent No. 2 with
the intention of damaging her professional
reputation.
This would capture all narration of events that have happened
against the complainant. The complainant then registers a
complaint before the jurisdictional Police Station on 28-06-2025. It
reads as follows:
"From:
Ms. G. Thejaswini,
Advocate,
Enrolment No. KAR/1634/2010
daughter of Late Sri H. Gangadharaiah,
Aged 50 years,
office at M/s Thejaswini and Associates,
No. 2390, E Block,
13th Main, 14th Cross,
Sahakarnagar, Bengaluru - 560092
- 9 -
Mobile: 99010 01005
To:
The Police Inspector,
Kodigenahalli Police Station,
Kodigenahalli Main Road,
Kodigenahalli, Bengaluru - 560092
Subject:
Complaint against Smt. Kirthi S Saraswathi and others for
atrocity, abusing and discriminating against me and my cast,
criminal intimidation, blackmail, mental harassment,
defamation, and invasion of privacy.
Respected Sir,
I. Advocate G. Thejaswini, I am constrained to lodge this
complaint against the following individuals for atrocity, criminal
activities, abusing and discriminating against me, my family,
and my cast, including blackmail, defamation, mental abuse,
threats to my professional reputation, and invasion of my
personal and family privacy:
1. Smt. Kirthi S Saraswathi, Belongs to the Upper caste
wife of Sri Vijay Deepak,
aged about 35 years,
residing at No. 16, 1st Floor,
GVB Nilayam, 3rd Main Road,
New Manjunatha Layout,
Ramamurthy Nagar, Bangalore-560016
Mobile: 9845860299.
2. Mother of Smt. Kirthi S Saraswathi - Name not known,
Residing at Tata Nagar, Bengaluru. Belongs to the Upper caste
3. Ms. Swathi Suresh - Fake Google reviewer and (Not my
client) Caste not known
4. Ms. Savithri Murthy - Fake Google reviewer (Not my client),
caste not known
- 10 -
1. I had been representing Smt. Kirthi S Saraswathi as her legal
counsel since October 24, 2024 in M.C. 1505/2020 in the
Hon'ble Court of III Addl. Family Court, Bangalore during which I
extended professional, ethical, and empathetic services to her
despite her unstable temperament and abusive language.
2. Over time, she began showing signs of extreme knowing I
belong to the Scheduled cast, mistrust, anger, and inappropriate
behaviour. Despite this, I continued to represent her
professionally, guided her legally and personaily, and assisted
with her matters diligently including:
a. Drafting and filing IA and criminal complaints
b. Suggesting meditation for mental wellness
c. Motivating her to secure employment.
3. On multiple occasions, she became abusive and accusatory,
including on June 12, 2025, where she made derogatory voice
calls and messages. I eventually told her to collect her NOC and
her case file.
4. On June 18, 2025, she came to my office with her mother:
she and her mother verbally abused me, keeping my cast.
Despite the provocation, I remained calm and allowed her to
collect her documents. After collecting the NOC and Documents,
she started demanding Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only)
and threatened if I won't pay she would tarnish my image in
Google and before my colleagues and start creating scenes in
my office by abusing me in a vulgar language and taunting me
in Kannada "thu kilu SC jathiyavalu ninnu, nimatha jathi
yogyatene estu', and her mother shouted on her daughter
pointing Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Photo, in Tamil " After
seeing Baba Saheb Ambedkar photo how did you give her the
case and later pointing on me in Kannada she abused as "Kula
gothra gothildane entha kilu schedule caste ge case kothidya",
she also told me that they are so dangerous and they are not
sparing her son-in-law and harassing him with cases for money
and all they required is only money and if I don't pay them they
will not spare and started blackmailing saying you that you are a
women advocate and we will spoil your name and charter if you
don't pay Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) at the
earliest. I was insulted a lot in front of my other clients. My
clients who were present in my office are as follows:
- 11 -
1. Sri. Aravindan - Mobile No. 74830 48010. Belongs to
the Gownder Caste.
And
2. Sri. Vijayandra Roa - Mobile No. 95356 22999.
Belong to the Marti Caste
5. On June 19, 2025, she began contacting and abusing my
former colleagues and seniors, spreading false allegations and
making defamatory statements, including threats such as "she
would bring people to my office and show me dire
consequences."
6. She has continuously posted false and defamatory Google
reviews through herself and others (including Ms. Swathi Suresh
and Ms. Savithri Murthy), including content attacking my
personal dignity, family, and professional identity. These reviews
are being updated daily with malicious intent. Yesterday, that is
on June 27, 2025, she and Ms. Savithri Murty, a fake reviewer
claiming to be my client, edited the review, making new false
allegations on me.
I hereby request your good self to take stern action as per law
for atrocity, criminal intimidation, blackmail, mental harassment,
defamation, and invasion of privacy and render justice to me.
Register an FIR under appropriate sections of the BNS. 2023,
including:
•
Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, Section 351(2) (3),
BNS Act, 2023, Criminal intimidation.
•
Section 356 (2) (3), BNS Act, 2023 - Defamation.
•
Section 79, BNS Act, 2023-Insulting the modesty of a
woman.
•
Section 308 (2) of BNS, 2023. Attempt to extort
money (if monetary demands are proven).
•
Section 354D-Cyber stalking.
•
Section 67 of the IT Act - Publishing obscene or
defamatory material online.
I am enclosing the following evidence with this complaint:
- 12 -
•
WhatsApp chats. 04 to 123
•
Screenshots of defamatory reviews 124 to 131
•
Copies of applications I had
prepared for her 132 to 146
•
MyCast Certificate 147
•
My Aadhar Card 148.
Hoping for justice at the earliest.
Yours faithfully,
Ms.G Thejaswini,
Advocate,
Bengaluru.”
This becomes a crime in Crime No.216 of 2025. The Police conduct
investigation and file a charge sheet. Summary of the charge sheet
as obtaining in Column No.17 reads as follows:
- 12
“ಈ ೕೕಪಣಪಟ
ಯ ಲಂ ರ ನ ವ
ಆ ೕಗ ದ ಎ 1- ೕ!" ಎ# ಸರಸ% ೃ! ಮ() ಎ 2- *+!, , !"
ಎಂ-ವ .ಂ /ದ ವಗ"ದ 0ೕಲ1 ಜ3ಂಗ4% ಮ() ಲಂ -10 ರ
ನ ವ 5ಂದ 6"7ರ ಪ89ಷ ;!ಯ ಆ<
ಕ3"ಟಕ ಜ3ಂಗ4% >ೕ8ದವ?@ A) B .
ಸದ8 4ೕCನ * D -01 ರವರ?ದ 9, ೕಮ! E FೕಜCG H ರವ
ವ ೕಲ?@ I ಎ 1- ಆ ೕFJ ತನL ಎಂ . C ನಂ . 1505/2020 ರ 4ೕ#
. -01 1
ಅNL ವ ಲO PQR7@ Sೕ/ದ4% * D ರವ ಒ U ಎ
ಆ ೕFಯ 4ೕCನ ವ ಲO P VಂW ನX 3X 6ಲಯ
+YರZ[ Pಜ?\ವಂF !/C A) B . ಅದರಂF ಅಂಕಣ 12 ರ
1 01
ನ <Cವ ಎ ಆ ೕFJ D ರ ಸಲSದಂF D ಯNL
Sೕ]Rದ4% ನX 3X 6ಲಯದ +YರZ <3ಂಕ4%
Pಜ?@ A) B . ಎ 1 ಆ ೕFJ * D 01 ರವ8[ ಆ^ಗ ತಮ_
.
4ೕCನ ಸ86@ `ದ W!) ಲ ಸ86ದ ಸಮಯ4% 4ೕCನ
ಅE"ಯNL ಸ aR<ಲ ಎಂ ಅವSೕಳ3 !ನಂF ವತ"c
I . ಈ +Yರ`@ * D 01 ರವ8[ dೕ;e ಆ@ ಅವ ಎ 1
ಆ ೕF[ ತನL ಎಂ . C ನಂ . 1505/2020 ರ 4ೕCನ ಎf . ಓ . C ಯNL
- 13 -
HೕWF) ೕc ತನL ಆhೕ# ಬ/ ಬಂ F[ VಂW jೕ@ ಎಂ
.
Sೕ/ A) B
:18.06.2025 06-50
ಈ@ `ಗ <3ಂಕ ರಂ ಸಂk ಗಂl
a 8ನ , ಆಂಕಣ 12 ರ ನ <Cವ ಎ 1 ಮ() ಎ 2
ಆ ೕFಯ dಂಗm ನಗರ V [ೕಹ/o p ೕ# qZಯ
, . 14
ಸರಹ<[ >ೕ8ದ ಸಹ ರನಗರ ಇ sಕ cೕ , # ರ>) ಯ ವ ಮc
ನಂ 2390 ರ ಒಳಗt[ ಇ ವ * D 01 ರವರ ಆ ೕ# [ jೕ@ ಅವರNL
uೕ
. ತಮ_ 4ೕCನ ಎf . ಓC ಯNL . ಪt VಂA) B . ಆಗ
1 01
ಎ ಆ ೕFJ * D ರವ8[ ನನL 4ೕa ಸ86@ ನtC R<ಲ
HೕR ನನ[ ಹಣವNL HೕWವಂF HೕWವಂF 4ೕ/ A) B ಆಗ ಪಕ% ದ
Q/!) ದI ಎ 2 ಆ ೕFJ ತನL ಮಗ/[ ಇwL Sxy ನ ಹಣವNL
HೕWವಂF 4ೕ] ಎಂ Sೕ/ A) B . ಅದ4% * D 01 ರವರ ಒಪU ದ
04
ರಣ ಎ1 ಅೕFJ D 01 ರವರ ಆhೕ# ನ ದ D
ರವ?ದ 9, ೕ ಅರ+ಂದf ಮ() * D 05 ರವ?ದ 9, ೕ◌ು +ಜ~ೕಂದ,
?• ರವರ ಸಮ€ಮ * D 01 ರವ8[ • ೕ] ಎ# . C ;!ಯವ] ,
HೕN HನL ;! ‚ೕಗX Fೕc ಇƒ ಎಂ dೖ HನL ಬ[… †ಗ‡
8ೕˆX ನ ಕಳಂಕ ಬರ‰ ಮ() Šರವ4% ಧ4% ಉಂ• ಆ\ವ 8ೕ!
ಬB PQF) ೕcಂ ಅ`ಚX ಶಬI ಗ/ಂದ Hಂ<C A) B . ಎ 2
01 ||
ಆ ೕFJ D ರವರ ಅhೕ# ನ ವ • ss Sೕಬ
ರವರ ‘ೕ’ೕ “ೕ8C , Qಲ0ೕತ, 0ೕ!) ಲ ”ೕc ಪ89ಷ ;!ಯವ8[
4ೕ# V
<I 6 ಎಂ dೖ AR ಅ•ಯ 8 ವX ) ಗ] Hಮ_ NL
aಮ_ c –WR<ಲ ಎಂ dೖ<A) B. ಎ1 ಆೕFJ ತನL †ಗ‡
ಆ˜ಂ™ Hಂದ ತನL ಮ() ತನL Aš6ದ ಎ2 ಆೕFಯ Sಸ8ನ
* D 01 ರವರ ಬ[… †ಗ‡ 8ೕˆX ನ 4ಟ 7@ ಮ() . ಅವರ Šರವ4%
ಧ4% ಬ ವ 8ೕ!ಯ ಬB< R ಇ ವB@ ತHœ ಲದ
ಸಂಗ, .Cದ * D •ರಗ/ಂದ žಡಪ
ತ) ” ಆದI 8ಂದ ಆ ೕಯ
+ ದI ಈ 4ಳಕಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳನy ಯ ೕೕಪZಪ
ಯNL
ಸ ಸ @ತ) ” .
ಆದI 8ಂದ ಸದ8 4ೕCನ ಎ1 ಮ() ಎ2 ಆ ೕFಗಳ +ದI ಕಲಂ 353
B/+ ೩(೫) –.ಎf.ಎ#-2023 ©F[ ಕಲಂ.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) ಎ#.C/ಎ#.
ಆ- -2014 8ೕತX ೕೕಪ¯ ಪ
.”
8. The offences alleged against the petitioners are the ones
punishable under the Act and Section 352 r/w 3(5) of the BNS. The
- 14 -
offences under the Act are the ones punishable under Section
3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s). They read as follows:
“3. Punishments for offences of atrocities .—(1)
Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe,—
… … …
r
( ) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
s
( ) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within
public view. ”
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) punishes derogatory statements made
by taking the name of the caste of a person belonging to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe in a public place or a place of public view.
The complaint and the charge sheet would clearly indicate that the
petitioners taking the name of the caste have hurled abuses against
the complainant in the office of the complainant, in the presence of
several clients. Albeit an office would not mean necessary
ingredients of it being a place of public view, while it is not a public
place, clients witnessing such hurling of abuses would require
evidence to demonstrate whether the petitioners had with an
intention abused the complainant taking the name of the caste of
- 15 -
the complainant. The petitioners do not stop at that. The petitioners
are alleged to have made such defamatory review in google
business profile damaging the complainant’s professional reputation
again allegedly taking the name of the caste. These instances prima
facie form the ingredients of the offences under the Act. It is,
therefore, for the petitioners to come out clean in a full-blown trial.
9. At this juncture, it also becomes apposite to refer to the
judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of SWARAN
1
SINGH v. STATE , wherein it is held as follows:
“…. …. ….
24. In our opinion, calling a member of the
Scheduled Caste “chamar” with intent to insult or
humiliate him in a place within public view is certainly an
x
offence under Section 3(1)( ) of the Act. Whether there
was intent to insult or humiliate by using the word
“chamar” will of course depend on the context in which it
was used.
25. A perusal of the FIR clearly shows that, prima facie,
an offence is made out against Appellants 2 and 3. As already
stated above, at this stage we have not to see whether the
allegations in the FIR are correct or not. We only have to see
whether treating the FIR allegations as correct an offence is
made out or not. In our opinion, treating the allegations in the
FIR to be correct an offence under Section 3(1)( x ) of the Act is
prima facie made out against Appellants 2 and 3 because it
1
(2008) 8 SCC 435
- 16 -
prima facie seems that the intent of the appellants was to insult
or humiliate the first informant, and this was done within the
public view.
26. Of course, it will be open to Appellants 2 and 3 to put
up their defence at the trial, and the trial court may or may not
accept the correctness of the allegations in the FIR. However, at
this stage we cannot quash the FIR against them and the trial
must proceed.
27. Learned counsel then contended that the alleged act
was not committed in a public place and hence does not come
within the purview of Section 3(1)( x ) of the Act. In this
connection it may be noted that the aforesaid provision
does not use the expression “public place”, but instead
the expression used is “in any place within public view”.
In our opinion there is a clear distinction between the
two expressions.
28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the
first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling
him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked
at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a
place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a
place within public view. It could have been a different
matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a
and
building, also was not in the public view. However, if
the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a
lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by
someone from the road or lane outside the boundary
wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the
public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public are there (not
merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an
offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore,
not confuse the expression “place within public view”
with the expression “public place”. A place can be a
private place but yet within the public view. On the other
hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which
is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality
(or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality
of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.
- 17 -
…. …. ….
34. The High Court in the impugned judgment has
observed (in para 16) that the question whether the
appellants indeed uttered the offending words with the
intention to humiliate the complainant, are matters of
evidence. We fully agree with this view. Hence, we find no
merit in the appeals of Appellants 2 and 3, and they are
accordingly dismissed. However, the appeal of Appellant 1 is
allowed, and the proceedings against him are quashed. There
will be no order as to costs.”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment while interpreting the
phrase "in any place within public view" makes a clear distinction
from the expression "public place". The Apex Court also holds that
the question whether the accused appellants therein uttered the
offending words with the intention to humiliate the complainant was
a matter of evidence.
10. The other offence is the one punishable under Section 352
of the BNS which is Section 506 of the IPC. The hurling of abuses
itself inheres that the petitioners have intimidated the complainant,
an Advocate. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in
the trial with regard to the said offence.
- 18 -
11. In the light of the aforesaid finding, there is no warrant of
interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. as the offence of hurling abuses against the complainant
would undoubtedly require evidence to disprove the allegations.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition lacking in merit
stands dismissed .
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
BKP
CT: MJ