Karnataka HC.
Credit: DH File Photo
The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed Congress leader B V Rajeev Gowda’s petition challenging the FIRs registered against him for hurling abuses at Shidlagatta City Municipal Council (CMC) Commissioner Amrutha Gowda and the sitting MLA.
In her complaint, Amrutha Gowda stated that Rajeev Gowda hurled abuses over phone calls, taking objections to the removal of banners put up at his behest for the promotion of the Kannada film Cult.
“In the present matter, 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, as it is settled principle of law that an FIR is not an encyclopedia of offences,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said while rejecting the petitions filed by Rajeev Gowda.
The issue was with the banners portraying Rajeev Gowda put up at Sidlaghatta, Chikkaballapura district, regarding Cult’s promotion.
The CMC commissioner, alongside the health inspector, cleared some placards from the fort area after receiving oral complaints that they slid and were causing disturbance to vehicular movement.
On January 12, Rajeev Gowda called Amrutha Gowda over mobile phone and hurled abuses, which was also circulated on social media. The other complaint was filed by C N Srinivasa Gowda, the vice-president of a political party in the taluk, for abuses against the sitting MLA of the constituency, in the very telephonic
conversation.
Challenging the FIRs registered under BNS sections 132, 224, 352, 351(3) and 56, the petitioner submitted that most of the offences were bailable and that Section 132 should not have been invoked, as there was no allegation that Rajeev Gowda used criminal force to stop the complainant from doing her duty. It was also submitted that the petitioner is willing to tender a public apology.
After perusing the FIRs, the court observed that the police had not invoked BNS Section 79 in the complaint filed by Amrutha Gowda. The court also noted that it is always open to the Investigating Officer to add offences, should the material so warrant.
“This court also notices that Sections 504 and 509 of the IPC/now 79 and 352 of BNS have been interpreted by the Supreme Court in a manner that, even use of filthy language depending upon the context and intent, may constitute an offence of insulting the modesty of a woman. The modesty of a woman is an attribute associated with womanhood as a class and that the ultimate test is whether the act is capable of shocking the sense of decency or dignity of a woman, gazed by contemporary societal standards. The abuses hurled in the facts and circumstances, require investigation in the least,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.