ORDER : 1. In this Petition, Petitioner seeks the following reliefs: a) Quash the First Information Report and Complaint in Crime No.36/2025 dated 17.05.2025 registered by Puttur Town Police Station for the offences punishable under section 132, 351, 352 and 3(5) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha (BNS) on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and ACJM Court, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada and all the subsequent proceedings initiated in so far as Petitioner/ Accused No.1 is concerned as per Annexure-A & B and etc. b) pass such other writ or directions or orders, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned HCGP for Respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the second Respondent filed the instant complaint on 07.05.2025 against the Petitioner - Accused No.1 and one Narmesh Rai - Accused No.2 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 35 1, 352, 505 and 506 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023. In pursuance of the same, an FIR in Crime No.36/2025 was registered against the Petitioner-Accused No.1 who is before this Court by way of the present Petition. In this context, it is pertinent to extract the complaint given by the Respondent No.2 as under: 4. Under identical circumstances, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh v. The State of Karnataka and Another, W.P. No. 100090/2024 disposed of on 04.03.2025 has observed as under: 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.1190 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri Prashant S Kadadevar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: The 2 nd respondent, Police Inspector of Jamkhandi Town police station is the complainant. A complaint comes to be registered on 21-2-2023 alleging that the petitioner who was working as a home guard has raised his voice demanding certain documents from the hands of the complainant. Based upon such act of raising of voice, the complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner in crime No.24 of 2023 for the afore- quoted offences. A complaint comes to be registered on 21-2-2023 alleging that the petitioner who was working as a home guard has raised his voice demanding certain documents from the hands of the complainant. Based upon such act of raising of voice, the complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner in crime No.24 of 2023 for the afore- quoted offences. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioner and the concerned Court registers it as C.C.No.1190 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 35 3 and 506 of the IPC. The registration of the criminal case is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in this subject petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Prashant S Kadadevar would submit that except raising of the voice, there is no other allegation against the petitioner. The incident of raising of voice is blown out of proportion by the police is his submission. 5. The 2 nd respondent-complainant though served has remained unrepresented even today. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader representing the State would however refute the submission of the petitioner contending that there are about 5 eyewitnesses to the incident and therefore, it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner working as a home guard is a matter of record. The 2 nd respondent complainant working as a Head Constable in the Jamkhandi town police station at the relevant point in time, is also a matter of record. The entire issue has sprung from an incident that has happened on 21-2-2023 which becomes the complaint registered by the 2 nd respondent. The complaint reads as follows: The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner has raised his voice and hurled abuses against the 2 nd respondent complainant. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioner. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column no.17 reads as follows: The issue is whether the petitioner should be tried for the offence under Section 353 of the IPC. Section 353 of the IPC reads as follows: “ 353. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioner. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column no.17 reads as follows: The issue is whether the petitioner should be tried for the offence under Section 353 of the IPC. Section 353 of the IPC reads as follows: “ 353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty .—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” Section 353 mandates that a public servant should be stopped from performing duties by usage of criminal force. There is no allegation in the case at hand that the petitioner indulged in assault of a public servant or used criminal force which came in the way of the public servant performing her duties. 9. The summary of the findings of the charge sheet, as also, the statement of all the witnesses are unequivocal that the only allegation against the petitioner is speaking to the 2 nd respondent/complainant by raising his voice. This would, in the considered view of this Court, not meet the ingredients that are necessary for an offence to become punishable under Section 353 of the IPC. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter, as the Apex Court in the case of K. Dhananjay v. State of Karnataka (Cabinet Secretary) in SLP (Crl.) No. 5905 of 2022 while considering an identical allegation has held as follows: “…. …. …. We have now perused the copy of the complaint which was given by Respondent No. 5 – Ms. A. Thomeena, Deputy Registrar to the Inspector of Police, Ulsoor Police Station, Bangalore. The same reads as under : - “Sir, Today at 3.05 PM, we had one incident in our office. One Shri Dhananjay who had been a party to the proceedings before us had filed a complaint before the Chief Information Commission seeking certain documents. A. Thomeena, Deputy Registrar to the Inspector of Police, Ulsoor Police Station, Bangalore. The same reads as under : - “Sir, Today at 3.05 PM, we had one incident in our office. One Shri Dhananjay who had been a party to the proceedings before us had filed a complaint before the Chief Information Commission seeking certain documents. The CIC vide order No. CIC/CAD/MT/A/2018/611756/SD dated 01.07.2019 and asked us to give some documents. We had kept every document ready and asked him to come and get it and inspect the document which he wanted. But apparently he wanted some other documents also which we felt had nothing to do with the order of the CIC. Therefore, being an official document, we had refused. Thereupon he started shouting and threatening us. At that time Smt. Rajashri, CPIO, Smt. Rekhashree, who is my PS, and Smt. Geetha who is an MTS were in the room. He threatening and shouted at them and disrupted the work of the office. Hearing the shouts and cries, people around gathered and I had immediately informed the police.Kindly take necessary action.” It is on the basis of the above complaint that an FIR has been lodged against the appellant. However, the only allegation against the appellant in the said complaint is that he was shouting and threatening the staff. This itself will not amount to any assault. Assault is defined under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code as under :- “ 353 Assault - Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is said to commit an assault.” We have reproduced the entire complaint hereinabove. On perusing the same, we find that none of the ingredients, as mentioned in Section 353 IPC, is reflected in the complaint letter. In other words, no offence under Section 353 IPC is made out in this case. The High Court, to our mind, has committed a mistake in not interfering in this case. On perusing the same, we find that none of the ingredients, as mentioned in Section 353 IPC, is reflected in the complaint letter. In other words, no offence under Section 353 IPC is made out in this case. The High Court, to our mind, has committed a mistake in not interfering in this case. This is a case which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, we allow this appeal and quash the entire proceedings initiated against the appellant.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that unless there is an allegation of assault or usage of criminal force against the accused, the accused cannot be tried for an offence under Section 353 of the IPC. It is an admitted fact that there is no allegation of the kind in the case at hand. What remains is Section 506 of the IPC. Even Section 506 of the IPC has its ingredients in Section 503 of the IPC, both of which read as follows: “ 503. Criminal intimidation .—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section. Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation. … … … 506. Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section. Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation. … … … 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation .— Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc .— and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.” None of the ingredients as obtaining in Section 503 of the IPC are even found. Therefore, the offence under Section 506 of the IPC is also not met. In that light permitting further trial against the petitioner would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER : (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1190 of 2023 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Jamkhandi stands quashed qua the petitioner." 5. If the impugned complaint is examined bearing in mind the principles enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid judgement, it is clear that the necessary ingredients constituting the alleged offences are conspicuously absent from the impugned complaint inasmuch as, except stating that the Petitioner No.1 had orally abused Respondent No.2, there is no other allegation made nor material placed on record to attract the aforesaid offences and as such continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the Petitioner-Accused No.1 would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference by this court in the present petition. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER : i) Petition is hereby allowed.