The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against S.P. Shanthi Prasad, observing that abusive language alone does not establish intentional insult or criminal intimidation without the essential legal ingredients.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj was hearing a petition filed by Shanthi Prasad challenging an FIR registered by Kuduremukh Police Station under Sections 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Background
The complaint arose from a boundary dispute between neighbouring landowners. The complainant alleged that Shanthi Prasad had removed fencing between their properties, leading to cattle entering his land. He further alleged that Shanthi Prasad called him and threatened him with dire consequences while using abusive language. Civil suits concerning the property were already pending before the competent court.
The High Court examined whether the allegations disclosed the essential ingredients of intentional insult and criminal intimidation. Referring to Supreme Court decisions, including B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana, the Court emphasised that offensive words must be assessed in their surrounding circumstances.
The Court observed:
“The nature of the words, the circumstances in which they were used, the occasion, the person to whom they were addressed and the surrounding circumstances have to be considered to ascertain whether the statutory requirement of provocation with the requisite intention or knowledge is made out.”
On criminal intimidation, the Court noted that a general allegation of threats was insufficient without the necessary particulars.
“The distinction between an abusive expression and a legally actionable threat cannot be overlooked. Every abusive or offensive statement does not constitute criminal intimidation.”
The Court found that the complaint did not specify the alleged threat of injury, the act the complainant was intended to perform or avoid, or circumstances establishing an intention to cause alarm.
Holding that the complaint lacked the essential ingredients of both alleged offences, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings arising from Crime No. 1/2025 against Shanthi Prasad.
It clarified that the order would not affect either party's rights or contentions in the pending civil suits.
Case Details
Case Title: S.P. Shanthi Prasad v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 1737 of 2025
Judge: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
Decision Date: September 30, 2026
