Shouting at an Official Without Any Positive Act Is Not Assault, Rules Karnataka High Court in Snehamayi Krishna v. State of Karnataka
Case: Snehamayi Krishna v. State of Karnataka and Another
Date of Judgment: 06 November 2026
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Coram: Justice Rajesh Rai K
Court Observation
“I am of the considered view that the entire chargesheet, allegations, entire FIR, complaint taken on its face value tell no offence made out against the petitioner. As such the registration of the FIR and further proceedings against the petitioner would amount in abuse of the process of Court. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.”
Summary
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the FIR and chargesheet against RTI activist Snehamayi Krishna, holding that no offence under Sections 132 and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, was made out against him. The Court held that shouting at or threatening a public servant, without a positive act, does not amount to assault or criminal intimidation, and that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
The Court noted that admittedly no criminal force or assault was used by the petitioner, and no abusive word was used nor any threat of dire consequences held out; saying it was “not a big thing” for him to harass the official since he had already complained against the Chief Minister does not attract any provision of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The Court also found the complaint to be a counterblast: it was lodged two days after the incident with no explanation for the delay, although the complainant was a public servant and police were allegedly present at the scene. The FIR, the chargesheet and all further proceedings stand quashed.
Key Holdings
- No offence under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of duty) was made out, since admittedly no criminal force or assault was used by the petitioner.
- No offence under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (criminal intimidation) was made out, since no abusive word was used and the petitioner admittedly did not threaten the official with dire consequences.
- Shouting at or threatening staff, without a positive act, does not amount to assault.
- A complaint lodged two days after the incident, with no explanation for the delay although the complainant was a public servant and police were allegedly present at the scene, indicates a counterblast to the complaint filed against the complainant by the petitioner.
Background
On 12 December 2024, RTI activist Snehamayi Krishna went to the Mysuru office of Roopa M.J., Secretary of the Sri Chamundeshwari Development Authority, to lodge a complaint alleging that she was involved in the theft and sale of sarees donated as offerings to the deity Chamundeshwari. The police refused to register his complaint and went to the official’s chamber to inquire; Roopa alleged that Krishna entered her office with the police, shouted at her and threatened to teach her a lesson. On her complaint dated 14 December 2024, the Krishnaraja police booked Krishna under Sections 132 and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and a chargesheet followed. The Court ruled only on the case against Krishna and did not examine his allegations about the temple sarees.
Related Articles
- Using Term Straight Shooter in Message Doesnt Amount to Extortion or Criminal Intimidation: Punjab & Haryana High Court
- Case Against Man Over ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ Slogan at BJP Protest Quashed, Rules Karnataka High Court
- A New Era of Criminal Justice: Unveiling the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.
