“Abuse of the process of Court” is how the Karnataka High Court has described the criminal case against RTI activist Snehamayi Krishna over an alleged threat to a Mysuru official. It quashed the FIR and chargesheet, holding that the complaint, taken at face value, disclosed no offence and was a counterblast to his own complaint against her.
Bengaluru: A criminal case against RTI activist Snehamayi Krishna, booked for allegedly shouting at and threatening a government official in her office in Mysuru, ended in the Karnataka High Court on Friday, which found that the allegations did not make out the offences of criminal intimidation or assault to deter a public servant [Snehamayi Krishna v. State of Karnataka].
Justice Rajesh Rai K allowed the petition filed by Krishna seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him, by an order passed on November 6, 2026.
A complaint that was never registered, and one that was
The incident is said to have taken place on December 12, 2024. Krishna had gone to lodge a complaint against Roopa M.J., Secretary of the Sri Chamundeshwari Development Authority, Mysuru, alleging that she was involved in the theft and sale of sarees from the Sri Chamundeshwari temple. Those allegations remain his, and have not been tested by any court.
The police did not register his complaint and instead went to the official’s chamber to make inquiries. According to the official, after Krishna arrived there with the police, he shouted at her and threatened to teach her a lesson. She also alleged that he said harassing her was not a big thing for him, since he had already filed a complaint against the then Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
On her complaint, lodged on December 14, 2024, Krishna was booked under Sections 132 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of duty) and 351 (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and a chargesheet followed.
The words, and what they did not amount to
The High Court examined what was actually alleged and found that neither offence was attracted. It held:
“No criminal force assault is used by the petitioner. As such, the offence is not attracted. No such abusive word (was used). Admittedly, the petitioner has not threatened the (public official) with dire consequences. Words used in complaint are that ‘it is not a big thing’ for the petitioner to harass (the public official) since he had already lodged a complaint against the Chief Minister. This also does not attract any provision of the BNS.”
Two days of silence
The Court also found the two-day gap between the alleged incident and the complaint unexplained. Police officials were present when Krishna is said to have shouted at the complainant, who was herself a public servant, yet no case was registered that day. The Court held:
“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. In such circumstance, it can be gathered that the complaint has been filed by respondent 2 for taking vengeance against the petitioner, as a counterblast to the complaint lodged by him against respondent 2.”
The operative finding
“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.”
With that, the FIR, the chargesheet and all further proceedings against Krishna stand quashed.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling is a reminder that heated words in an official’s chamber do not by themselves amount to criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS unless there is a threat of injury, and that Section 132 BNS needs actual assault or criminal force. It also shows the weight courts give to an unexplained delay where the complainant is a public servant and police were present at the scene, especially when the complaint follows a grievance raised by the accused against the complainant.
The ruling concerns only the case against Krishna. The Court has not examined or ruled on his allegations about the temple sarees against the official.
Case Title: Snehamayi Krishna v. State of Karnataka and Another
Bench: Justice Rajesh Rai K, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: November 6, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Aruna M. Shyam for the petitioner