1

Reserved on : 20.01.2026

Pronounced on : 22.01.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22

ND

DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.716 OF 2026

C/W

CRIMINAL PETITION No.721 OF 2026

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.716 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

SRI RAJEEV GOWDA B. V.,

S/O SRI VARDAPPA

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

R/A NO. 34, SURYA SILK CITY LAYOUT

KANKANAGARA, SHIDLAGHATTA

CHIKKABALLAPURA – 562 101.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

SRI K.N.SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY

SHIDLAGATTA TOWN P.S.

REPRESENTED BY

R

2

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT BUILDING

BENGALURU, PINCODE – 560 001.

2 . MISS. AMRUTHA G.,

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

C/O MUNICIPAL OFFICE

ASHOKA ROAD

SHIDLAGATTA TOWN

CHIKKABALLAPURA

KARNATAKA – 562 101.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF

BNSS, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR

BEARING CR.NO.9/2026 REGISTERED BY THE SHIDLAGHATTA

TOWN P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 132, 224, 352, 35 1(3), 56

OF BNS, 2023 AND COMPLAINT DTD 14.01.2026, PENDING ON THE

FILE OF THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND CJ M COURT,

SHIDLAGHATTA, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, VIDE ANNEXU RE A

AND B RESPECTIVELY.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.721 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

SRI RAJEEV GOWDA

S/O SRI VARDAPPA

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

R/AT NO. 34, WARD NO.01

SURYA SILK CITY LAYOUT

OPP. GARUDADRI SCHOOL

KANKANAGARA, SHIDLAGHATTA

CHIKKABALAPURA – 562 101.

... PETITIONER

3

(BY SRI VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

SRI K.N.SUBBA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY

SIDDALAGATTAH TOWN P.S.

REPRESENTED BY

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT BUILDING

BENGALURU

PINCODE – 560 001.

2 . SRI C.N.SRINIVAS GOWDA

S/O CHIKKAMUNEGOWDA

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

R/AT NAGAMANGALA VILLAGE

SHIDDALAGATTA TOWN

CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 101.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF

BNSS., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR

BEARING CR.NO.10/2026 REGISTERED BY THE SHIDLAGHATT A

TOWN P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 352, 353(2) OF BN S, 2023

AND COMPLAINT DTD 14.01.2026, PENDING ON THE FILE O F THE

LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND CJM COURT,

SHIDLAGHATTA, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT AND COMPLIAN T

DATED 14.01.2026 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND B.

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.01.2026, COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWIN G:-

4

CAV ORDER

The accused is common in both these petitions and the

complainants are different. The crimes arises out o f a solitary

incident. The crimes are Crime Nos. 9 of 2026 and 1 0 of 2026. In

Crime No.9 of 2026, the offences alleged are the ones punishable

under Sections 132, 224, 352, 351(3) and 56 of the BNS and in

Crime No.10 of 2026, the offences alleged are the ones punishable

under Sections 352, 353(2) of the BNS.

2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

Crl.P.No.716 of 2026:

2.1. The root of the dispute traces itself to the publicity and

promotion of a motion picture titled “Cult”. A film promotion

programme was proposed to be conducted on 13-01-202 6 at Nehru

Stadium, Shidlaghatta Town which is said to be unde r the

leadership of the petitioner. Banners with the port rait of the

petitioner are said to have been installed all over the city Fort area.

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

5

The banners and placards that were hanging for the film promotion

fell down and are said to have hit certain vehicles . In this

connection oral complaint comes to be made to the c omplainant.

The complainant along with the Health Inspector cle ared the

banners, as they were disturbing the public. On 12 -01-2026 at

3.45 p.m., the petitioner over his mobile No.9900004501 calls the

complainant and hurls abuses which were not in good taste. The

complainant is said to have been terrified, mentally traumatized, as

it was in utter defamation of a woman and the staff. Then, on the

incident, the complainant registers a complaint, which becomes a

crime in Crime No.9 of 2026.

Crl.P.No.721 of 2026:

2.2. The complainant in this case is said to be th e Vice-

President of a political party of Shiddalagatta Tal uk,

Chikkaballapura District. The allegation is that on 12-01-2026 at

about 3.45 p.m. the petitioner calls the public servant/the Municipal

Commissioner, the complainant in the companion peti tion, from his

mobile number and is said to have hurled abuses on her. This

recording goes viral on all social media platforms. On the allegation

6

that the petitioner without obtaining any permission or approval has

put up banners, flexes in the port area and had spoken bad words

against the sitting MLA of the constituency, in the telephonic

conversation with the complainant in the companion petition, the

crime comes to be registered. The registration of c rime in both

these cases in Crime Nos. 9 of 2026 and 10 of 2026 has driven the

petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard in both the cases Sri Vivek Reddy, learne d senior

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.N. J agadeesha,

learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the pe titioner

would vehemently contend that the offences alleged in Crime No.9

of 2026 are all bailable offences, except the one which is Section

132 of the BNS. Section 132 of the BNS does not get attracted in

the case at hand at all, as there is no criminal force used by the

petitioner to stop a public servant from performing his/her duties.

The offence is erroneously laid against the petitioner. If that offence

is stayed, the petitioner is prepared to cooperate with the

7

investigation/enquiry, with certain protection from the hands of the

Court. He would also submit that petitioner is ready and willing to

tender public apology to what has been uttered agai nst the

complainant in the fit of anger. He would seek prot ection at the

hands of this Court, as anticipatory bail has not been considered

still and is yet to be considered and therefore, there is threat of

arrest.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

representing the State would contend that the crime under Section

132 of the BNS may have been registered now. FIR i s not an

encyclopedia. Appropriate crime may emerge after th e

investigation. If it is not Section 132, it could be 74 or it could be

79 of the BNS, as admittedly the petitioner has spoken such words

that would undoubtedly outrage the modesty of the w oman, apart

from the fact that he has stopped the public servan t from

performing her duties. He would submit that investigation, in the

least, must be permitted to be continued and has pr oduced

transcript of the conversation between the petition er and the

8

complainant in Crime No.9 of 2026. He would seek dismissal of the

petitions.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have per used the

material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts and the link in the chain of

events are not matters of conjecture, they rest fir mly upon

the record. A Kannada film titled ‘Cult’ appears to have

provided the genesis of the present controversy. It is alleged

that, for the purpose of promoting the said film, b anners and

flexes were erected in and around the Nehru Stadium ,

Shidlaghatta town in contemplation of a promotional

programme proposed to be held on 13-01-2026. The

petitioner stated to be a politician and a contesta nt in the

legislative assembly elections 2023, albeit unsuccessful, has

allegedly caused flexes and banners to be displayed

extensively throughout the City Fort area, thereby leading to

9

disturbance of public tranquility and inconvenience to road

users.

8. In view of the said disturbance, the Municipal

Commissioner, who is the complainant in Crime No. 9 of 2026, is

said to have caused removal of certain placards, ba nners and

flexes, which were allegedly erected in an accident prone area and

were obstructing vehicular movement. The complainan t being a

public servant, was evidently performing her offici al duties in

accordance with law. The removal of the banners is alleged to have

provoked the petitioner, who, in a fit of anger, is said to have

called/telephoned the Municipal Commissioner from h is mobile

number and hurled abuses at her. The conversation b etween the

petitioner and the complainant is necessary to be e xtracted to

notice whether, there is some substance in the alle gation. The

conversation as produced by the learned Additional State Public

Prosecutor reads as follows:

“

INTH:12/01/026 ರಂದು ಮಾಹ 3:49 ATBL DOSG2Y JN,IN0EC6 '0M.6PCK oL.7

1/W.2DVN4,

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- ಹ"ೋ ಹ"ೋ

10

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ :- ಹ"ೋ -ೕಡಂ ಅದು .ಾನ/ 0 ZÉÆÑø¯C P¯ÊéÛÆï

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- U Æv ಸ/ ಅದು ಒಂದು .ಾನ/ ಆ *ೋ6 ¸¯æÊa¯Ý½v, rݤݽv.. 2ಾ7089ದ3ಂ:ೆ,

ªÛ¯ÊɯæÊ AÆîßéA¯ ß.Z;¸¯æÑ«. 2ೋ#089ಾ;*ೆ ಅವ<3 =ಾ*ೋ ©Öv> ÃÑ?¯vÑ@A ÌÆBÆC ಇದು3

ಅಂದು0ಟು9 ÉÆì. ಅಪE/ ಸ/ ಅವ &ೆ P¯Êé

zÉÝ ಸ/ ಒಂದು ಚೂರು G¯H«½v Ãou¸¯æéI ಎಂದು P¯Êé zÉÝ.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ

:-ನK .ಾನ/ LÉÆÝzæ 0MNೆ3 ಬಂದು .ೆಂ7 ಹMNP 0 rÛ¤, ನನ ಒQೆIತನ

ɯæÊîZ;Ê° ಇನು ììÀA¸¯Du¼ì ɯæÊîRv,

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- ಸ/ ಒಂದು STಷ, .ಾನ/ £Àß - 0aÑ.P0ಟು9 ಅದು ®VÊPì½vÛ¯ ಸ/ ಅದನ

rݤݽv J Æv ಕ89ಾ;*ೆ ಅ7EBೆಂ@ ಆ#ೆWಂ:ೆ, ಸ/ ಒಂದು STಷ ¸¯Êé ಅದು ಅ7EBೆಂ@ ಆ#ೆ

ಸ/ ©Öv> ಇಂದ ÃÑ?¯vÑ@ OÑZÛ¯

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ಒಂದು STಷ ಎರಡು STXಾ ¸¯ÊY ¯Áè ÉÆì. ¸ÆÑsZÊÑs ¸mSERq ಗಳ ತರ [\

¸¯æÊůÊî ನಂ&ೆ ಮನುಷ ªRv ಆ-ೕ"ೆ

2ೇ½ÛÃS ಆVೕ] ì½v ಒಂದು STಷ ಕೂ vÉÆÌüÉÆîø¯ ®ßRv…

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ

:- ÃÑ?¯vÊÑ@ ಬಂೆ3 .ಾನ/ =Ƹ¯ 7ೕ½Û

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- .ಾನ/ ö[CRv ಸ/ :ೆ&ೆದು0ಟು9 ªVÊPì½v ಇ89ಾ;*ೆ ÉÆì. ůYA¯^ɯ ಇ_ ?ಾK`

ÌÆî

¢ÝìRv

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ

:- ಅವನಮa_ ಸೂQೆ ಮಗ =ಾವ_ ÖMNÝ;½v =ಾವ_ 0MNb ಅವನಮa_ ಸೂQೆ

ಮಗ ಕ89ೆ3 ಸ ಅವನಮa_ URvÑÛ¯ï ɯæÊîCS, ÉÆì. ಏನು ಅಂತ ತಂದು ಈ&ಾ

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- ಸ/ Sೕವ< ಅಂ&ೇ ®è ÌƼ«Å¯Êî, ಅದು ನಮa JÑ?Ævd] ಗಳe 0MNರೂದು, ª½v

ಆ7EBೆಂ@ ಆ#ೆ ªZ¸¯C :ೆ&ೆದು ಇ89ಾ;*ೆ ಅVೕ] ì½v ಸ/.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ: ಏf ಏ_ ÌÆ:ƫůÊî ಅವನಮa_ cÁ½ Á½ÊGÆ÷ [Y¸¯æÑB¯ï ಮನುಷ

ÉÆìRv P¯Êé[`S ಈಗ J Æv ø¯æÑ`«. ಬಂದು ÉÆQ¯ 0ಟು9 ಓ6 0ಡ.ೇಕು :ÆRævÃ. ಆ ¸¯RÁ

¸¯æîCÊS ಅವನಮa_

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- ಸ/ ɯæÊî ¥ÉÊ]9 ಅವರು ಪTೕ`ಷ_ &ೆ ಅ ¥Éè, ÌÆ«¸¯C P¯Êé, ಏನೂ ÌÆîRv,

.ಾನ/ U½v.ಗh ಆ# ಕಟ9 0ಟು9 2ೋ#ಾ;*ೆ, ಅದು ªov]u Gೈಂ8V> ಆ# ಕ@ URv ಸ/ ಮಧ

D¯æÊ«½v ಕ89ಾ;*ೆ ಆ7EBೆಂ@ ಆೆ3 ÉÆÎ *ೆ] ?ಾSEಬh ಆ#[`j ªÝ¸¯C.

11

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ :- "ಾ]9 a¯HK ಅಂ&ೆ ಕ89b .ಾನ/ 0MN ಆ ůæÊé ಮಗ, ಸೂQೆ ಮಗ ಅವನಮa_

ಎಂ ಎh ಎ .ಾನ/ ÃouPZï Sೕನು ಈಗ P¯ÊQÆCdZ;ÊS ಒಳIತನkಾ#ೆ3 ಸ ಏ_ U½v, î©D¯_E

ಗಳe ÌÆîÛ¯ï ಅವನಮa_ ůéIA¯^ ಇಂದ ಒಂದು G¯¸¯ÑÜ ¸¯RÁ ÌÆB¯æʸ¯ ®ßRv P¯Êé[`S [Q¯lCʽv

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- ಸ/ ɯæÊî ಸ/ Sೕವ< ಕ*ೆಂ@ ಆ# ÌÆ:Æî ಸ/ U½v, ಎಂ ¥Áèd] ಗಳ -ೕ"ೆ

ಅಂm ಸೂQೆಮ&ೆ ಎಂತ ůHůÊî, J¢°Oî *ೆ]

?ಾ¤ìO½o, Sೕವ< ®½v, ಅವ &ೆ ಪಸ9nಾh ಅವರು

ಪTೕ`ಷ_ ತ&ೊಂBೇ ಇ

¯Áè, ಅವರು

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ

:- ಏf .ಾನ/ 2ೆಂm ÖMNZï

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ÃouÛÆ;z Æv, ಪT`ಷ_ ¸¯æouÛÆ;z Æv ತಂದು U½v

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- =ಾರು ¸¯æouÛÆ;D¯ ಸ/ ªZv¸¯ÊU_ "ೆಟ/ ¸¯æou Æv ri¤Ý½v ಕ89ಾ;*ೆ ಆ7EBೆಂ@

ಆ#&ೆ j ಆ/ *ೆGಾoSಬh LÉÆÝz. ಆಯುC ಅಂೆ3 ನಮaವರು p¯H½A¯ 2ೋ&ಾC*ೆ

¸Áéq ಗಳe.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ

:- ?ೈ]9 ಇ*ೋ *ೆ] ¥Á¤ì©°n ¼A¯æÊéI, ª½v ůéIA¯^ ಬಂದು J Æv, ¸m £Àì÷è]`

ಎ0rPCೕS sìÉÆ ª½v ಬಂದು P¯æî[Û¯ï F©o½ P¯æî

¸ÉÆÌÃ.ೇಕು ª½v.

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ

:- L¼¸¯C ಸ/ =Ƹ¯ ಅಂ&ೆ ÌÆBÆCD¯ ಅ@ ½Ê]u ಕ@ ůʸÆÛ¯ï ¸¯Ê\ .ೇಕ ¯Áè ಸಕ`h

Tಡh ª½v ಕ89ೆ3 =ಾ/ *ೆ] ?ÆSEO½o ತ&ೊQಾC*ೆ ªÝÉÆÀ .

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ಇ*ೋ ಸಮGೆ ಬ&ೆ £°G¯æʸ¯ ¥Êߤ:¯ URv *ೆ] ?ÆSEÖ½o, *ೆ] ?ÆSEÖ½o

ಇೆ=ಾ Sಮ&ೆ J Æv 31 kಾ6` ದು LɯÊì. ಸಮGೆ ಇೆ=ಾ ůéIA¯^ J Æv kÆîÑ`Ý ಎ0rPCೕS

ÝÑA¯ÉÆ ಬಂದು P¯æî:ÆdÛ¯ï ಚಪo

½½ 2ೆಂ#ರು:ೆC ಅಂ:ಾ :ೋ PCೕS ಏನು ಅಂ:ಾ ಮನುಷ ಆ-ೕ"ೆ

ůéIA¯^ 31 kÆîÑ`Ý ಕ*ೆPCೕS D¯GÆoSEÖ½o ಎಂತ ಇರುತCೆ.

----- ----- ------

ಅೇ Zì ZÉÆÑÃ:12/01/2026 ರಂದು ಮಾಹ 3:52 ßÑa¯ Árèݽv *ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ ರವರು

ಮತುC !3ೕಮ[ ಅಮೃತ + ?ೌ*ಾಯುಕCರು n«vtDu ನಗರಸuೆ ರವರು ÌƼÉÆîz.¢ 2 ɯÊ

®î¥Ê¢ì.À ©°nʽÁ Æ÷

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- ಹ"ೋ

12

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- vೕ_ ಕ@ ÌÆîÛ¯ï ೕಸ_ ª Æv, P¯Êé[Ê`S [Q¯lCéI, ůéIA¯^, ಪwಾN:ಾಪ ಏನು

ªì.xjÁůʸÆß.:¯C P¯Êé[Ê`S [Q¯lCéI, ಆ-ೕ"ೆ, ನನ JÝ.z.PÆö¸¯æÑB¯ï, ůéIA¯^,, ಪwಾN:ಾಪ

ಏನಂತ JÝ.°ÁůʸÆß.:¯C P¯Êé[Ê`S [Qೆl1

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- ɯæÊî ಸ/ ಅದು ri¤Ý½v ಕ89ಾ;*ೆ. ಅದನ ಕ890ಟು9 ÉÆì. Sಮaವ &ೆ ಇ_

nಾK` ÌÆîZ;ÊS.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ಪwಾN:ಾಪ JÝ.°ÁůʸÆß.:¯C [Q¯lCéI, ಗೂ.ೆತರ [Q¯lCůÊî ಅವನಮa_ ಗೂ.ೆ

ªRvÉÆì. LɯæÊ ನyzರು =ಾ*ೋ ಒಬrರು ಇಾ;*ೆ ಅಂತ ªÉ¯æÀÊݸ¯æCÊÁCz, rɯ ತನಕ ಬಂದು

P¯æÊ÷D¯æÊݸ¯æCÊÁCz ಸು

ªÉÄß UZ;ÊS, LɯÊì. ìîÊ[Û¯ ಅಂತ J Æv &ೊ:ಾC#ೆ ನನ&ೆ ಆದರೂ ಕೂಡ

:ಾQೆadಂದ UZ;ÊS, LɯÊì. ìîÊ[Û¯ ಆದೂ3 :ಾQೆadಂದ UZ;ÊS ಪ]9 ª½v .ಾನ/ ಕ89ೆ3 ಸ

U ÆvÑÛ¯ï ůéIA¯^ ಪwಾN:ಾಪ ªì.xjÁůʸÆß.:¯C P¯Êé[Ê`S [Q¯lCé,

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- ಸ/ Tಡh D¯æÊ«½v , ª½v ©ÃCݽv, Ãou¸¯æéI, ®¸¯æÊa¯ ಸಕ`h ì½v ಆ7EBೆಂ@

ಆ&ಾCdೆ ಸ/ ůéIA¯^ ಆ7EBೆಂ@ ಆ#ೆ.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:-ಏf 0

ZÉÆÌAಡು ಬಂದು ಅವನಮa_ ಆVೕ] ಹ[Cರ ಇ mÉÆÌüÉÆîà ಅಂತದು; ಏSೆ

ಅ

¯Éèà ಕ89] .ೇ7ತುC ಅದನ, ಸೂQೆ ಮಗ ಅವನಮa_,

ಅಮೃತ&ೌಡ:- ಸ/ ɯæÊî ಅವ &ೆ, ¸¯Êé ಸ/ ಒಂದು STಷ, Sಮaವರ ¸mSERq &ೆ ಆq Bೇ@

ÌÆîZ;Êj, ಆVೕ] ಹ[Cರ ಇೆ ಸ/ ಸ{ಲo ©ÃCݽv ಕ89P ಅಂತ ÉÆ¢< P¯ÊéZ;Êj ಅ

«æ&ೆ.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ůéIA¯^ ಇಂದ P¯ÊQÆCdZ;Ê° D¯GÆoSEO½ ಇೆ ಅಂ:ಾ ůéIA¯^dÑÝ kÆ«`½v ನೂರು

ìæz.A ?ÆïOvÑ] ಇೆ 31 kÆî`ß. ತಂದು ಕೂ PCೕS ª½v ?ಾ3ಬಂ Gಾh9 ÌÆîRv ಅಂೆ3

gî֫ůÊÃ. 0ಟು9 :ÆRæv> ನ ಆ ¸¯RÁ ¸¯æî½Rv ಅಂೆ3 ನಮa ಅಪoS&ೆ ಹು89ದ rßÉ¯Ê ªRv

P¯Êé[`S [Qೆl1. P¯Êé[`S ಈಗ, ಈಗ P¯ÊéZ;ÊS ಸಮGೆ D¯GÆoSEÖ½o ಇೆ ಅ"ಾ{ Sಮ&ೆ

D¯GÆoSEÖ½o ಏನು ಅಂತ :ೋ PCೕS ÉÆì. D¯GÆoSEÖ½o ÌÆB¯æʸ¯ ಆಗ.ೇಕು, URvÑÛ¯ï

gî֫ůÊÃ. :ÆRævÃ. 0ಟು9, ¸¯RÁ ¸¯æÊîCÊS ಈಗ 31 kÆîÑ`Ý ನು ಇ*ೋ ಸಮGೆಗಳe ª°Á½Rv

ಅಂೆ3 D¯GÆoSEÖ½oALì. ಅಂ:ಾ :ೋ PCೕS ಈಗ LɯæÊAìraÝ. ಇದು ªÉ¯æÀÑ«. ÉÆì. Á.raɯ

ಕೂ[ೆ3 ನನ&ೆ :ೋ PCೕ*ಾ Sಮa ZÌÆÃ. ೌh ÉÆ..

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- ಸ/ ಒಂದು STಷ ¸¯Êé, ÉÆ¢< ůéIA¯ ನಮaದು 2ೆhC ಇ_E ?ೆಕ9/ ಅವ &ೆ ಅದು

A¯æ[C Æv..

13

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ಅವನಮa_ ಸೂQೆ ಮಗ, ಅವನಮa_ 2ೆhC ಇ_E ?ೆಕ9/ &ೆ P¯Êé, ಅವನಮa_

r.DuůʸÆÛ¯ï ನಮaದು. D¯GÆoSEÖ½o ಇೆ=ಾ Sನ&ೆ, ಎಷು9 .ಾನ/ ಇkೆ ª½v, :ÆRævÃ. UÝï½v,

ಇಾkೆ ª¢¸¯C Æv ಪT`ಷ_, ůéIA¯^, ಬಂದು :ೋ PCೕS, ಈಗ ಬಂದು :ೋ PCೕS ª½v, ಇ

¯ÁèvÀÛAೆ3

¸¯Ê

½ÛS D¯GÆoSEÖ½o Sಮaದು ಏನು ಅಂ:ಾ, ಈಗ :ೋ PCೕS ಏನು ಅಂ:ಾ, am_ ª½v.. J ¯v½v..

ಇಾkೆ ಅಂತ D¯GÆoSEÖ½o ª½v 2ೇ

½ÛÃS, J Æv ಜನರ ಮುಂೆ ಕ*ೆದು ÌÆîCÊS, ಅಂೆ3 ªÑ÷ÑA¯ Æv

ÌÆ« Æ, D¯GÆoSEÖ½o ಏನು ಅಂ:ಾ, ಈಗ :ೋ PCS ಬಂದು D¯GÆoSEÖ½o ಏನು ಅಂ:ಾ, ª½v

ಕ89ದ*ೆ ಸ U Æv ಅಂತ P¯ÊéÛ¯ï ÉÆì. ಮನುಷ ª Æv ÉÆì. P¯ÊéZ;ÊS, ಇೆ3 .ಾನ/ &ೆ ಎಷು9

ÃDuůʸ¯æÊ P¯Êé ª½v Vೕ] Ãou¸¯æéI, ಕ89] ¸¯æéI.

ಅಮೃತ&ೌಡ- ಸ/ ಅದು Vೕ] ದು ÌƤDq ª Æv, ಅದು 0ದು; 2ೋm [ತCಂ:ೆ ªZ¸¯C ©ÃC¸¯C :ೆ&ೆದು

ಇ89ಾ;*ೆ.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- Vೕ] ÃouP¸¯æéI, |ೕ&ೆ P¯ÊéZ;Êz Æ{ D¯GÆoSEÖ½o, ÉÆQ¯dÑÝ D¯GÆoSEÖ½o

ಏನು ಅಂ:ಾ :ೋ PCೕS.

ಅಮೃತ&ೌಡ:- ªÝɯÀ P¯ÊéÝ.; ಅವರು ©ÃC¸¯C :ೆ&ೆದು ಇ89ಾ;*ೆ ಸ/ ಅಂತ.

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- =Ƹ¯

D¥sÀì/ ಅವ &ೆ P¯Êé Æ{ ಸ/ ಅದನ.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ :- ಏf *ೆGಾoSE0 ½o ಏನೂ ಅಂ:ಾ :ೋ PCೕS ÉÆì., *ೆGಾoSEಬh ಅ"ಾ{ Sೕವ<

ಕTೕಷನ/ D¯ÊGÆoSEÖ½o ಕTೕಷನ/ ůéIA¯^ P¯ÊéCS ಅವನಮa_ ಒಂದು .ಾನ/ ಪT`ಷ_ ಇೆ3,

ಹು}ಾN ªÉ¯æÀÊÖouZ;ÊDÆ ನಂ&ೆ =ಾವ

£ÉÆÎà ¸¯HA¯æÑů=Æ÷ ¸¯ ¯Áì ÌÆB¯æʸ¯ OÑZZ;ÊDÆ U½v

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- ಸ/ ɯæÊî ಸ/ Sೕವ< =Ƹ¯ |ಂ&ೆ ÌÆ:ÆîCZ;ÊDÆ ನನ&ೆ A¯æ:ÆC÷C Æv

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ :- *ೇ *ೆGಾoSEಬh ಅh kೇS3 Sೕವ< ?ೈ]9 *ೆGಾoSEಬh ಆ# ¸¯

¯Áì ÌÆî

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- ÉÆÎ ªÝɯÀÊ ಸ/ 2ೇ

½Û*ೋದು ನ ªÉÄÎ ¸¯Êé U½v, ůéIA¯^ OÑZÛÆ;D¯ ನK Gಾ9q9 ಅ ಅ

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ಪT`ಷ_ ಇ

¯ÉÝ ಒಂದು .ಾನ/ ಇೆ3 .ೆಂ7 2ೆ ½ÛAZ;ÊS P¯æîPCÊS ಅಂೆ3 ಅಂ#ಂ&ೆ ಆ

ಜನಗಳ ¸¯H½ 2ೆಂ&ೆ P¯æîPCÊS ɯæÊî

ಅಮೃತ&ೌಡ:- ಏ_ ಸ/ ಹಂ&ೆ ÌÆ:ÆBÆC UZ;ÊDÆ Sೕವ<, ಏನು P¯æîPCÊS ಅಂೆ3 Gಾ9q ßéA¯

P¯æîPCÊDÆ.

14

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ಏ ¸¯RÁ D¯GÆoSEÖ½o ಅ"ಾ{ ¸¯RÁ ÌÆîï ª½v, D¯GÆoSEÖ½o ¸¯ ¯Áì ÌÆîZï ಅ ¯Áé

ಈ&ಾ ÉÆQ¯dÑÝ D¯GÆoSEÖ½o=Æ÷ ¸¯RÁ ÌÆîPCÊS ÌÆî.

ಅಮೃತ&ೌಡ:- ÉÆ_ }ೆ> ÌÆî ÌÆ:ÆîCÊS ಸ/

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ :- Á½Ê] ಅ

£ÉÆÌÃÖouZ;ÊDÆ ª¢:¯CÊɯæÊ ಒಂದು ಅ] ಇದು ¸¯æoï ಅಂತ P¯Êé 0ಟು9,

ª¢¸Æ~ ¸¯æa¯u ಅಂತಂೆ3 7:ಾC

Qéಟು9 J¼.C¸¯æÑ«. 2ೋ# UɯæÀOrÑÝ. =ಾವಂೋ ಸೂQೆ ಮಗಂದು

ÃouPZï

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- ಸ/ ɯæÊî ಹಂ&ೇ

¯Áè ÌÆ:ÆB¯rÊî Sೕವ<.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- ಏf ನ

ªÀÄÄÝ 7ತುC UɯæÀO.ïÝ. 2ೆಂ# ÃouZï.

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- =ಾ

ªÀÅÝ ಕ89ಾ;*ೆ ಸ/ =ಾವ<ದು ಕ89ಾ;*ೆ ª½v ಇ*ೋದು ಆ UîÊ UÝï½v S ªÉÄÝ

?ಾಟ`ನ]` ಗಳe ಇ*ೋದು.

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ:- Pಎಂ 3ೕ&ಾ3ಂ Zì ಏ_ ¸¯RÁ ÌÆîZï &ೊ[C"ಾ{ Sೕನು =ಾ/ ÌƼ. ¸¯Êé J½v

ÌÆ

qÉÝ ಅಂತ &ೊ[Cಲ{ ನನ&ೆ =ಾವ<ದಕೂ1 :ಾQೆadಂದ UZ;ÊS ಅವತುC ÉÆì.,

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- =ಾವ<ದದು`

=ಾವನಂದು .ಾನ/ ÃouPÛ¯ ಅಂತ &ೊ[Cೆ ನನ&ೆ.

---- ---- ----

ಅೇ Zì ZÉÆÑÃ: 12/01/2026 ರಂದು ಮಾಹ 3:56 ßÑa¯ Árèݽv *ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ

ರವರು ಮತುC !3ೕಮ[ ಅಮೃತ + ?ೌ*ಾಯುಕCರು n«v ಘಟ9 ನಗರಸuೆ ರವರು ÌƼÉÆîz.¢ 3ɯÊ

®î¥Ê¢ì.ÀA©°nʽÁ Æ÷

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ :- ಹ"ೋ

*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ :- ಆ .ಾನ/ ¥À¸ÀÖ°è. J½v:¯æCÊ ಅ °.., ÃouPÛ¯ï ಸ URv ಅಂತ ಅಂೆ3 P¯ÊéZ;ÊS

ಮನುಷ ಆಗ

¯Áè P¯Êé[`S,

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ

:- ಸ ÉÆ_ }ೆ> ÌÆîPCS ಸ/

15

ಅಮೃತ &ೌಡ:- ಪT`ಷ_ 32Y ಅದು …2YUL ಅಂತ }ೆ> JN0P”S. "ೇಟ/ oL8.“L8oL cL.7 ಅವರು

=ಾರು ಇನೂ "ೇಟ/ oL8nbRY,

ಅಮೃತ&ೌಡ:- …2Y oL8nbUNpQL.

ಅಮೃತ&ೌಡ: }ೆ> JN0”.S ಇ . ಎಂದು JN,IN0EC6 '0M. ಇರುತCೆ,”

The afore-quoted conversation, in turn, leads the complainant to

lodge a complaint, which culminates in registration of a crime in

Crime No.9 of 2026. The complaint reads as follows:

“ನಗರಸuಾ oNrN`RS, W)Ytvb, Mಕ1ಬQಾIಪ<ರ 9VLYw

E-Mail:-itstaff_ulb_sidlaghatta@yahoo.co.in

Ph.& Fax: 08158/254404/254405

ರವ &ೆ,

W)Ytvb.

ರವ ಂದರವ ಂದರವ ಂದರವ ಂದ

ಅಮೃತ.+,

?ೌರಯುಕCರು, W)Ytvb ನಗರ ಸuೆ,

W)Ytvb,

16

y.ೈh ನಂ : 7022218922

ÌÆì¤D¯,

*****

n«vtDu ನಗರದ ?ೌ*ಾಯುಕC*ಾದ ಅಮೃತ.+, ®ÝA ÉÆì. ¼ra½v

Sk¯ÊZP¸¯æYeI¢<Û¯ÊɯÑÝD¯, ÉÆì. ZÉÆÑÃ:30/06/2025 ಂದ n«vtDu ನಗರ Áu¯è½v

?ೌ*ಾಯುಕC*ಾ# ¸Æè`S¢`|Á.[Cz.:¯CÊɯ. ZÉÆÑÃ:13/01/2026 ರಂದು n«vtDu ನಗರದ ɯ£zæ

ರವರ r.ÑÛÆY¼{ݽv £Ta¸¯æÑîÝ.;, !3ೕ.*ಾ+ೕ, &ೌಡ ರವರ uಾವMತ3ವ<ಳI ?¯v>E ಗಳನು

ಗಳನು ªY¢îPÝ.;, ಸದ ?¯vÊ>EßYe kÆ£ìßéA¯ :ಾ# ¸¯YA¯ ÖZ;Ý.;, ಇದನು ಕಂಡ Gಾವ`ಜSಕರು

ÌÆî "=ಾವ ಸೂQೆ ಮಗ ?¯vÊ>E ಅನು 0MNದು;, ಕೂಡ"ೇ ಸದ

ಎಂದು ನನ&ೆ ಧ

«ÄÌ 2ಾ7, ನನನು ಎದುರು PÆö¸¯æÑ«D¯ ªì.xjÁůʸÆ÷z.:¯C ನಮa :ÆRævÃ.

0ಟು9 ಓಡ.ೇಕು, =ƢɯæÊ 2ೆhC ಇ_E?ೆಕ9/ ª¢ìrɯÀʸ¯Êè, ಜನಗಳ ¸¯Hè½v P¯æB¯Á.:¯CÊɯ.

ಆವತುC ಆ ಸೂQೆ ಮಗನ ?¯vÊ>E ÃouZ;Ê°, ನನ ?¯vÊ>E ಗಳನು 0MNದ*ೆ .ೆಂ7 £F.N:¯CÊɯ. =ಾವ ಸೂQೆ

ಮಗ 0MNದು;, ಆ ůæÊé ಮಗ ಸೂQೆ ಮಗ ಎಂ.ಎh ಎ .ಾನ/ ÃouPZ;Ê=Æ ಎಂದು ¸¯Du

ÌƼ.ßéÑÝ LâFìݽv ನನನು ÁÑu¯æÊZP .ೈದು, 31 kÆ«`ßéÑÝ ಜನರನು ಕಳe|P .ೆಂ7

ಇಟು9 ಸುಟು9 2ಾಕುವ<ಾ# ಮತುC ಜನಗಳನು - Sನ jರು

zÀÞ ಎ[Cಕ89 F©o½dÑÝ 2ೊBೆP. ìßzݽv

¸¯RÁ ÌÆ«R. ÌÆìPÃkÆ÷

ಇರುವ<ದ ಂದ r.ÑZì ZìßY½v ನBೆಯುವ ಆಗು-P¯æÊß.ßéA¯ !3ೕ.*ಾ+ೕ,&ೌಡ*ೇ ɯÊz

17

“6TGILAQLlT 5L"

ತಮa jwಾ{P

ಸ|/-

?ೌರಯುಕCರು,

ನಗರಸuೆ W)Ytvb

oÁuÉUÉ 2ಾಜ*ಾ# S.0G

9. The allegation against the petitioner presently stand for

offences punishable under Sections 132, 224, 352, 3 51(3) and 56

of the BNS. Subsequently, with the permission of th e learned

Magistrate, an offence under the provisions of the Karnataka Open

Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 has also been

invoked. What is of significance is that, the petitioner eve n

before the ink on the crime could metaphorically dr y, has

approached this Court calling in question the very

registration of the crime, primarily on the ground that the facts

would not attract Section 132 of the BNS, which is Section 353 of

the earlier regime, the IPC. On the score that the Apex Court has

interpreted the scope and ingredients of Section 353 and has held

that the use of criminal force against a public ser vant during

18

execution of his duty alone would constitute an offence thereunder.

Be that as it may. Whether the offences presently invoked are

impeccably laid or whether alteration/addition of s ections is

warranted, is not a matter for adjudication at this threshold

stage. What is presently before the Court is merely a

registration of the crime. It is always open to the

Investigating Officer, in the course of investigati on, to seek

appropriate permission from the jurisdictional Cour t, for

addition of offences, should the material so warran t.

10. A plain reading of the complaint and the conversati on,

however, would unmistakably reveal that the petitioner has spoken

in a manner that strikes at the dignity of a woman or even other

public servants. Whether the remarks were made agai nst a public

servant or otherwise is not determinative for that purpose. The

language and tenor attributed to the petitioner would, prima facie,

disclose offences under Section 79 of the BNS. Sect ion 79 of the

BNS corresponds to Section 509 of the IPC. Section 79 of the BNS

reads as follows:

19

“79. Word, gesture or act intended to insult

modesty of a woman

- Whoever, intending to insult the

modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any s ound or

gesture, or exhibits any object in any form, intending that such

word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object

shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of

such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonm ent for a

term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.

The provision is explicit and unequivocal. Section 79 indicates that

whoever by words, sound, gesture or act intends to insult the

modesty of a woman would be punishable with impriso nment which

may extend upto 3 years besides fine. It is a cognizable offence. It

is difficult to comprehend as to how the prosecutio n has not

invoked this offence, notwithstanding the nature of the

conversation attributed to the petitioner, as it wa s against a

woman who is a public servant. A person who once he ld the

status of a lawmaker is expected to be circumspect and

restrained in his speech, particularly when address ing a

woman, a public servant who is only discharging her

statutory duty.

11. It is in public domain or a matter of public

knowledge that banners and flexes, whether for film

20

promotion or otherwise, erected indiscriminately ac ross

cities create menace to the public, impede movement , and

erode civic aesthetics. The State appears to have r emained

blissfully indifferent to the rampant proliferation of such

banners and flexes across public spaces. Such acts would

squarely fall within the ambit of Karnataka Open Pla ces

(Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981, yet action is

seldom taken against such disfigurement. It is high time that

the State wakes up and enforces the law in earnest against

unauthorised banners, placards, and flexes .

12. The complainant in Crime No.9 of 2026, has prim a facie

diligently performed her duty. When a public servant performs

lawful duties, no individual can claim license to i ntimidate or

abuse such public servant for mere discharge of pub lic

functions. Therefore, abuse directed at a public se rvant, with

a view to deter or obstruct them from performing of ficial

duties, would undoubtedly attract penal consequence s. In

the present matter, the complainant is not merely a public

servant, but also a woman and no man can be permitt ed to

21

speak in the language so offensive, so as to be bey ond the

pale of civility and lawful tolerance. At the very least, the

language employed deserves investigation , as it is settled

principle of law that an FIR is not an encyclopedia of offences. In

this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the

Apex Court in STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. KUNWAR

SINGH

1

, wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:

“…. …. ….

8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counse l

appearing on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, we are

of the view that the High Court has transgressed the limits of its

jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC by enquiring into the

merits of the allegations at the present stage. The fact that the

respondent was a signatory to the cheques is not in dispute.

This, in fact, has been adverted to in the judgment of the High

Court. The High Court has also noted that a person who is

required to approve a financial proposal is duty bo und to

observe due care and responsibility. There are spec ific

allegations in regard to the irregularities which h ave been

committed in the course of the work of the ‘Janani Mobility

Express’ under the National Rural Health Mission. At this stage,

the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the mat erial in

the manner in which the trial court would do in the

course of the criminal trial after evidence is addu ced. In

doing so, the High Court has exceeded the well-sett led

limits on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Se ction

482 of CrPC. A detailed enquiry into the merits of the

allegations was not warranted. The FIR is not expect ed to

be an encyclopedia, particularly, in a matter invol ving

financial irregularities in the course of the admin istration

1

2021 SCC OnLine SC 3668

22

of a public scheme. A final report has been submitt ed

under Section 173 of CrPC, after investigation.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court in KUNWAR SINGH has held that FIR is not an

encyclopedia. Investigation must ordinarily be perm itted to

proceed, save in exceptional circumstances carved o ut by judicial

postulates.

13. This Court also notices that Sections 504 and 509 of the

IPC/now 79 and 352 of BNS have been interpreted by the Apex

Court in a manner that, even use of filthy language depending upon

the context and intent, may constitute an offence of insulting the

modesty of a woman. The modesty of a woman is an at tribute

associated with womanhood as a class and that the ultimate test is,

whether the act is capable of shocking the sense of decency or

dignity of a woman, gazed by contemporary societal standards. The

abuses hurled in the facts and circumstances, require investigation

in the least.

14. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court cannot at this

stage, embark upon an evaluation of whether Section 132

23

BNS or any other section is ultimately sustainable, since the

investigation has hardly commenced. The crime was

registered on 14-01-2026 and the petition is prefer red on

19-01-2026 within 5 days. The petitioner, therefore , seeks

interference at this stage when investigation is ye t to

meaningfully unfold . The Apex Court in NEEHARIKA

INFRASTRUCTURE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2

, lays down

the principles of interference by this Court in exe rcise of its

jurisdiction under 482 of the Cr.P.C. The conclusions laid down by

the Apex Court are as follows:

“…. …. ….

Conclusions

33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated

above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether

the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of

stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”,

during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section

482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be

justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no

coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the

final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while

dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashi ng the

criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under

Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, our final conclusions are as under:

2

(2021)19 SCC 401

24

33.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the

relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained

in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a co gnizable

offence.

33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the

cognizable offences.

33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or

offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report

that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.

33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised

sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the

“rarest of rare cases” (not to be confused with the formation in

the context of death penalty).

33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of

which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to

the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations

made in the FIR/complaint.

33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at

the initial stage.

33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an

exception rather than an ordinary rule.

33.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the

jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State

operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to

tread over the other sphere.

33.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are

complementary, not overlapping.

33.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference

would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial

process should not interfere at the stage of invest igation of

offences.

25

33.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do

not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according

to its whims or caprice.

33.12. The first information report is not an

encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating

to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by

the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits

of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permi tted to

complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce

the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does

not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of

process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer

finds that there is no substance in the application made by the

complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate

report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be

considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the

known procedure.

33.13. The power under Section 482CrPC is very wide,

but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more

cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent dut y on the

court.

33.14. However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks

fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-

restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid

down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab,

1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal

[State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992

SCC (Cri) 426] , has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.

33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by

the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power

under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether the

allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cog nizable

offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits

whether or not the merits of the allegations make o ut a

cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating

agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.

26

33.16. The aforesaid parameters would be applicable

and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by

the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing

petition in exercise of powers under Section 482CrP C and/or

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. How ever, an

interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the

quashing petition can be passed with circumspection . Such an

interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually

and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigati on is in

progress and the facts are hazy and the entire

evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court

should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to

arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused

should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section

438CrPC before the competent court. The High Court shall not

and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest

and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till

the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/charge-

sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while dismissing/disposing

of the quashing petition under Section 482CrPC and/ or under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

33.17. Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie

of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of

interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad

parameters while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC

and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to

hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such

an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so

that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and

the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High

Court while passing such an interim order.

33.18. Whenever an interim order is passed by the High

Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted” within the aforesaid

parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by

“no coercive steps to be adopted” as the term “no coercive steps

to be adopted” can be said to be too vague and/or broad which

can be misunderstood and/or misapplied.”

27

The Apex Court in NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE has

comprehensively laid down the principles governing interference by

the High Court under 482 of the Cr.P.C. The conclusions

emphasize that if the FIR discloses commission of c ognizable

offence, the Court should not ordinarily stifle inv estigation

and interference is permissible only in the narrowe st

exceptional circumstances.

15. In view of the above, the investigation at the least, in the

case at hand, is indispensable. Consequently, Crl.P.No.716 of 2026

does not merit entertainment at this stage. For the very reasons

indicated in dealing with Criminal Petition No.716 of 2026, the

petition in Criminal Petition No.721 of 2026 also is found meritless.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in these

petitions, the petitions stand rejected. Consequently, pending

applications/I.A.No.1 of 2026, also stand disposed.

28

It is made clear that the observations made in the course of

the order are only for considerering the case under Section 528 of

BNSS and would not bind or influence the investigation.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

JUDGE

Bkp

CT:SS