Karnataka High Court quashes FIR against RTI activist Snehamayi Krishna over alleged threat to State official

The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed criminal proceedings initiated against activist Snehamayi Krishna for allegedly shouting and threatening a government official in her office [Snehamayi Krishna v State of Karnataka].

Justice Rajesh Rai K held that the first information report (FIR) against Krishna was a counterblast that was registered after he accused the public official of being involved in the theft of saris from a local temple.

The Court passed the order on a petition filed by Krishna to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 

The Court allowed the petition, holding that the  allegations did not amount to  the alleged offences of criminal intimidation and assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant.

"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," the Court said.

The case was tied to an incident that allegedly occurred on December 12, 2024, when Krishna tried to lodge a complaint against the Secretary of the Sri Chamundeshwari Development Authority, Mysuru, Roopa MJ. Krishna's complaint alleged that the official was involved in the theft and sale of sarees from the Sri Chamundeshwari temple.

The police refused to lodge the complaint and instead went to inquire with the official in her chamber. The official alleged that after Krisha arrived with the police in her office, he shouted at her and threatened that he would teach her a lesson.

The official further accused Krishna of declaring that since he had filed a complaint against the then Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, harassing her was not such a big deal. 

Based on these allegations, Krishna was booked in an FIR that cited the offences of Sections 132 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant) and 351 (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The Court, however, found that these offences were not attracted in the present case.

"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,” the Court held. 

Further, the Court observed that there was an unexplained delay in  lodging the complaint on December 14, 2024, two days after the incident. 

The Court noted that police officials were present when Krishnan allegedly shouted at the complainant, who was herself a government official. 

Therefore, the Court questioned why there was an unexplained delay of two days to lodge a complaint in the matter. 

The Court held that this delay indicated that the complaint was a counter-blast and filed in retaliation against Krishna after he accused the complainant-official of being involved in the theft of sarees from the temple.

"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 Court said, while quashing the FIR registered against Krishna. 

Senior Advocate Aruna M Shyam represented Krishna.