“Undoubtedly abusive and intemperate” words were not enough: the Karnataka High Court has held that mere abusive language is not criminal intimidation or intentional insult under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) unless the complaint discloses the statutory ingredients of those offences.
Bengaluru: A landowner accused of abusing and threatening his neighbour over a phone call during a boundary dispute has had the criminal proceedings against him quashed by the Karnataka High Court, which found that the complaint did not disclose the ingredients of intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace or of criminal intimidation [S P Shanthi Prasad v. State of Karnataka and Another].
Hearing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), Justice Suraj Govindaraj quashed Crime No. 1/2025 of Kuduremukh Police Station, registered under Sections 352 and 351(2) of the BNS and pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Mudigere.
Intimidation needs particulars
On the charge under Section 351(2), the Court noted that the complaint said no more than that the petitioner “threatened him with dire consequences”. It set out no specific threat of injury to person, reputation or property, nor the act the complainant was meant to do or omit, nor circumstances showing intent to cause alarm. The Court observed:
“Every abusive or offensive statement does not constitute criminal intimidation. The statutory ingredients have to be discernible from the allegations themselves.”
A bare assertion of threats, with no particulars, cannot by itself be treated as disclosing the offence, the Court said.
Offensive words and the missing intent
The Court recalled that in a petition of this kind it does not conduct a mini-trial, but that proceedings cannot continue where the allegations, even if accepted in full, disclose no offence. It accepted that the words attributed to the petitioner were “undoubtedly abusive and intemperate”, yet held:
“However, the mere fact that the words are offensive or insulting cannot, by itself, satisfy the requirements of Section 352 of the BNS. The complaint must disclose the further ingredient that the petitioner intended, or knew it to be likely, that such provocation would cause respondent No.2 to break the public peace or commit any other offence.”
Read as a whole, the complaint offered no factual foundation for such intention or knowledge, the Court found. It cautioned that the complainant’s failure to actually breach the peace is not by itself a ground for quashing, since Section 352 requires intention or knowledge of the likelihood of such a consequence, not an actual breach.
The test from the Supreme Court
Section 352 of the BNS corresponds to Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 351 to the criminal intimidation provision, Section 506 IPC. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana [(2025) 3 SCC 475], which in turn cites Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra and Mohd. Wajid v.
State of U.P. Those rulings hold that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence does not amount to intentional insult unless it is likely to provoke a breach of peace or another offence and the accused intended or knew that likelihood. The words, the occasion and the circumstances are to be read together, and each case turns on its facts.
A phone call, a fence and two civil suits
The complainant, S.G. Sanmathikumar, lodged a complaint on 19 December 2024, and the FIR followed on 3 January 2025. The complaint alleged that the two men own neighbouring land in Samse village, Kalasa taluk, Chikkamagaluru, that the petitioner had removed the fence between the properties so that cattle strayed onto the complainant’s land, and that after the cattle were driven out the petitioner telephoned him, threatened him with dire consequences and abused him in Kannada. These are allegations in a complaint, and the Court did not test them on evidence.
A boundary dispute between the families was already before a civil court. The complainant’s mother had sued for perpetual injunction and declaration in O.S. No. 2/2024, and the petitioner and his wife had filed O.S. No. 11/2024 for injunction over the same property. The petitioner argued that a civil dispute had been given a criminal colour and that the ingredients of Sections 352 and 351(2) were absent.
The civil dispute, and what the order does
The existence of a civil dispute is relevant but not determinative, the Court said: ordinarily a civil complexion does not bar a prosecution if the complaint independently discloses an offence. Here, the words arose in the immediate backdrop of a pending property dispute, and the allegations disclosed, at the highest, an altercation with abusive and intemperate language. Sending the parties to trial when the complaint itself lacked the statutory ingredients would not advance justice.
The petition was allowed and the proceedings arising out of Crime No. 1/2025 were quashed. The Court clarified that the order is confined to the criminal proceedings and does not affect the rights or contentions of either party in the pending civil suits.
Why the order matters
The Supreme Court’s settled test for intentional insult now has a BNS application. The order shows courts reading a complaint as a whole: offensive words alone do not make out Section 352, and a vague claim of threats does not make out Section 351. It also marks the limit of the civil-dispute argument, which supports quashing only when the complaint itself falls short of the offence.
Case Title: S P Shanthi Prasad v. State of Karnataka and Another
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 1737 of 2025 (Section 528 BNSS)
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: September 30, 2026
Appearances: Mr. Manju Byral R., Advocate, for the petitioner; Ms. Rashmi Patel, HCGP, for the State; Mr. N. Chethan, Advocate, for Mr. M.S. Harinath, Advocate, for respondent No. 2