Court holds mere abusive language and vague threats insufficient to attract criminal charges under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; cautions against misuse of criminal law to escalate civil disputes
In a significant ruling on September 30, 2026, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against S P Shanthi Prasad under Sections 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The case arose from a boundary dispute between neighboring landowners, which had spilled over into allegations of abusive language and threatening phone calls.
The complainant, respondent No.2, had alleged that the petitioner abused him over the phone and threatened him with "dire consequences" following the removal of boundary fences, which allowed cattle to stray onto the complainant's land. The FIR was registered by the Kuduremukh Police Station and was pending trial before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class Court in Mudigere.
The petitioner challenged the FIR, contending that the allegations were an attempt to criminalize a civil property dispute. Counsel for the petitioner invoked the landmark Supreme Court decision in B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana (2025), which clarified the essential ingredients for offences of intentional insult and criminal intimidation under the previous Indian Penal Code provisions analogous to Sections 352 and 351(2) of the BNS.
Justice Govindaraj, after analyzing the complaint and relevant legal precedents, held that mere abusive and intemperate words, without a factual foundation showing intent or knowledge likely to provoke breach of peace, do not constitute an offence under Section 352 of the BNS. The Court underscored that actual breach of peace is not necessary to establish the offence, but the complaint must disclose intention or knowledge that the provocation would likely cause such breach. In this case, no such intention or knowledge was evident.
Regarding Section 351(2) relating to criminal intimidation, the Court noted that every abusive or offensive statement does not amount to criminal intimidation. The complaint failed to specify any particular threat of injury to person, reputation, or property, nor did it disclose an intention to cause alarm or compel the complainant to act or abstain from an act. The vague allegation of "threatening with dire consequences" was deemed insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements.
The Court further acknowledged that while the existence of a civil dispute is not alone a ground to quash criminal proceedings, the circumstances here revealed that the criminal complaint was an attempt to add a criminal color to a civil boundary dispute. The criminal allegations, at best, disclosed an altercation and the use of abusive language in the context of ongoing civil litigation concerning the property.
Exercising its inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the High Court quashed the FIR and directed that the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner be terminated. The Court emphasized that this order would not affect the civil rights or claims of either party, which remain subject to adjudication in the pending civil suits.
This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal law should not be misused to escalate civil disputes and clarifies the threshold for offences involving insult and intimidation under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It also provides a useful precedent for courts to carefully scrutinize the factual matrix and statutory ingredients before allowing criminal proceedings to continue in matters intertwined with civil conflicts.
Bottom Line:
BNSS Section 528 - Quashing of FIR - Mere abusive and intemperate words in backdrop of pending property dispute, without factual foundation showing intention or knowledge to provoke breach of peace, do not constitute offence under Section 352 of BNS - Omnibus allegation of threatening with dire consequences, without specific threat of injury or intention to cause alarm, does not make out offence under Section 351(2) of BNS - Criminal proceedings quashed as criminal colour was sought to be given to civil dispute.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 Section 528, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Sections 351(2), 352
S P Shanthi Prasad v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3001690
