Karnataka High Court rejects Congress leader's plea to quash FIR for threatening woman official

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday refused to quash a criminal case registered against Congress leader Rajeev Gowda over allegations that he abused and threatened a woman Municipal Commissioner after banners promoting the film of a Minister's son were removed in Sidlaghatta [Sri Rajeev Gowda BV v. State of Karnataka].

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that such use of abusive language against a woman public servant while she was performing official duties warrants investigation.

“When a public servant performs lawful duties, no individual can claim license to intimidate or abuse such public servant for mere discharge of public functions. Therefore, abuse directed at a public servant, with a view to deter or obstruct them from performing official duties, would undoubtedly attract penal consequences,” the Court said.

Noting that the complainant was a woman, the Court said that the offensive language used against her crossed the bounds of civility.

“The complainant is not merely a public servant, but also a woman, and no man can be permitted to speak in the language so offensive, so as to be beyond the pale of civility and lawful tolerance. At the very least, the language employed deserves investigation,” the Court added.

The dispute traces back to the promotion of a Kannada film titled Cult. Ahead of a promotional event scheduled for January 13, banners and flexes were allegedly put up in and around Nehru Stadium in Sidlaghatta.

Gowda, who had unsuccessfully contested the 2023 Assembly elections, is alleged to have been behind the display of these banners across the City Fort area, which caused traffic disruption and inconvenience to the public.

Municipal Commissioner, Amrutha G, who is the complainant in the case, had the banners and flexes removed, as they were put up in an accident-prone area and were obstructing traffic. The removal of the banners is said to have angered the Gowda, who allegedly called the officer and hurled abuses at her.

This led the complainant to lodge a complaint against Gowda, and a first information report (FIR) was registered citing offences under Sections 132 (deterring a public servant), 224 (obstruction), 352 (intentional insult), 351(3) (criminal intimidation) and 56 (abetment) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Gowda subsequently approached the Karnataka High Court seeking the quashing of the case.

After examining the case, the Court said that the complaint showed the petitioner had spoken in a manner that undermined the dignity of a woman.

It further noted that the language and tone attributed to Gowda prima facie also disclosed an offence under Section 79 (insulting the modesty of a woman) of the (BNS).

During hearings, the State had submitted that a charge citing this offence may also be added in this case after investigation. The Court, in turn, observed that it was difficult to understand why this provision had not been invoked yet.

"It is difficult to comprehend as to how the prosecution has not invoked this offence ... A person who once held the status of a lawmaker is expected to be circumspect and restrained in his speech, particularly when addressing a woman, a public servant who is only discharging her statutory duty," it held.

The Court also pointed out that the FIR was registered on January 14 and that the quashing petition was filed within days, when the investigation had barely begun,

It noted that where an FIR discloses a cognisable offence, investigation should ordinarily be allowed to continue and that interference is justified only in rare cases.

"In view of the above, the investigation, at the very least, is indispensable,” the Court added as it rejected Gowda's plea to quash the FIR.

By the same order, the Court also rejected Gowda's plea to quash a connected FIR lodged on a complaint by a JD(S) activist NC Srinivas Gowda.

Srinivas Gowda's complaint claims that Rajeev Gowda verbally abused and threatened Shidlaghatta JD(S) MLA BN Ravikumar as well during a phone call with Municipal Commissioner Amrutha G.

The matter also led the High Court to criticise the State's failure to tackle the menace of unauthorised flexes and banners in Karnataka.

"It is in public domain or a matter of public knowledge that banners and flexes, whether for film 20 promotion or otherwise, erected indiscriminately across cities create menace to the public, impede movement, and erode civic aesthetics. The State appears to have remained blissfully indifferent to the rampant proliferation of such banners and flexes across public spaces. Such acts would squarely fall within the ambit of Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981, yet action is seldom taken against such disfigurement. It is high time that the State wakes up and enforces the law in earnest against unauthorised banners, placards, and flexes," the Court said.

Senior Advocate Vivek Reddy, along with Advocate KN Subba Reddy appeared for Rajeev Gowda.

Additional Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha appeared for the State.

[Read Order]