Mere Use of Abusive Language Does Not Attract Offence Under Section 353 IPC: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Accused for Vague Allegations

“No Force, No Injury, No Clear Words Alleged—FIR Is an Abuse of Process of Law,” In a sharp rebuke to vague and unsubstantiated criminal allegations, the Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of obstructing public servants and using abusive language during an alleged confrontation with police officers. Justice Mohammad Nawaz, speaking for the Court, declared:

“Mere use of abusive language would not by itself attract the ingredients of Section 504 IPC.”

The Court allowed the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, observing that the FIR and subsequent charge sheet lacked the essential elements to constitute an offence under Sections 353 and 504 of the IPC.

Allegations Without Substance Do Not Create Criminal Offence

The case arose from an FIR (Crime No. 103/2020) registered at Channapatna East Police Station on November 4, 2020, where the police alleged that the petitioner, Anumandala Rajesh Reddy, had abused and attempted to assault police officials who were trying to apprehend him in connection with another case.

However, the complaint offered no detail about the nature of the abuse or any specific acts of assault. Justice Nawaz noted pointedly: “It is not stated as to the exact words spoken by the petitioner to abuse the complainant and other police officials and the use of criminal force.”

Further, the Court found that there was no allegation of the petitioner causing any injury, escaping from custody, or making any specific attempt to hinder the officers from discharging their duties.

FIR Founded on Generalities, Not Criminal Conduct

Criticising the lack of specific detail, the Court held: “The allegations are vague in nature. Further, mere use of abusive language would not by itself attract the ingredients of Section 504 IPC.”

Regarding the offence under Section 353 IPC (assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant), the Court explained that the essential requirement of “criminal force” was entirely absent.

Case Built on Shaky Foundation: The Related Case Was Already Closed

Adding further weight to the petitioner’s argument, it was revealed during the hearing that the police had already filed a ‘B’ report (closure report) in the very case (Crime No. 102/2020) for which they were attempting to apprehend the petitioner. This fact was not disputed by the State during proceedings.

The Court concluded that the entire episode rested on an unsustainable foundation and that allowing such a prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of judicial process.

Court’s Final Word: “No Offence is Made Out”

In quashing the proceedings, the Court ruled: “The averments in the complaint if taken on its face value does not fulfill the ingredients of the offence alleged.”

Accordingly, the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 1199/2021 before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna, were quashed. All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.

This judgment stands as a strong reminder that criminal law cannot be invoked without a solid factual and legal basis. Vague complaints and general allegations cannot substitute for the essential ingredients of an offence. As the Court made clear:

“The complaint must disclose specific and actionable conduct. Abuse of process cannot be permitted under the guise of lawful prosecution.”

Date of Decision: April 4, 2025