The Karnataka High Court has quashed the FIR, chargesheet and all subsequent criminal proceedings against RTI activist Snehamayi Krishna, observing that the allegations of threatening a government official did not disclose the offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Justice Rajesh Rai K held that the complaint appeared to have been filed as a counterblast to Krishna's earlier complaint against the complainant, a government official in Mysuru. The Court also found the two-day delay in lodging the complaint unexplained.
Background
The matter arose from an incident dated December 12, 2024, when Krishna visited the office of Roopa M.J., Secretary of the Sri Chamundeshwari Development Authority, Mysuru, along with police officials.
Krishna had alleged that sarees donated to the Sri Chamundeshwari Temple were being misappropriated. The allegations against the official were his own and were not examined in these proceedings.
Roopa subsequently alleged that Krishna shouted at her and threatened to teach her a lesson. Based on her complaint dated December 14, 2024, an FIR was registered under Sections 132 and 351 of the BNS, relating to assault or criminal force against a public servant and criminal intimidation.
Examining the allegations, the High Court found no specific act of assault or use of criminal force. It also observed that the alleged words did not establish a threat of dire consequences necessary to attract the offences.
The Court observed:
The Court further questioned the delay in filing the complaint, particularly because police personnel were allegedly present at the scene. It noted:
"If the incident had really happened, there was no such impediment for respondent 2 (complainant), being a public servant, to immediately on that day (file a complaint) or for the police who were allegedly present on the scene of occurrence to register the suo motu case against the petitioner."
The Bench also considered the complaint in the context of the earlier allegations made by Krishna against the official and observed:
"It can be gathered that the complaint is filed by R2 (Roopa) as a counterblast to the complaint filed against her by the petitioner."
Finding that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not establish the alleged offences, the High Court held that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The Court accordingly allowed Krishna's petition and quashed the FIR, chargesheet and all further criminal proceedings against him.
Case Details
Case Title: Snehamayi Krishna v. State of Karnataka & Another
Case Number: CRL.P 13799/2024
Judge: Justice Rajesh Rai K
Decision Date: 6 November 2026
