<p>The High Court of Karnataka has said that for an offence punishable under IPC Section 323, there should be hurt caused in the squabble. Justice M Nagaprasanna observed this in a recent judgment while quashing a criminal case.</p>.<p>The petitioner had challenged the proceedings pending before the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge in Dakshina Kannada. The crime was registered by the Puttur town police for the offences punishable under IPC Sections 504, 323, 506 and also under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.</p>.<p>The petitioner submitted that he had instituted a civil suit against one person and an order of injunction was operating against that person. The petitioner claimed that in order to settle personal scores for instituting the suit, the opposite party set up his employee (complainant) to file a complaint in Puttur police station. The complaint stated that the petitioner had gone to the basement of the newly constructed building and hurled abuses taking the name of the complainant’s caste and also threatened his life and obstructed construction activity.</p>.<p>Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the registration of crime suffered from want of bona fides, in view of the pending civil suit and the order of injunction in favour of the petitioner. The court said that for an offence punishable under IPC Section 323, there should be hurt caused in the squabble. “A perusal at the records would reveal that the wound certificate shows a simple scratch mark on the forearm and another scratch mark on the chest. Bleeding is not what is indicated. Therefore, simple scratch marks cannot become an offence under Section 323 of the IPC,” the court said, adding that IPC Sections 504 and 506 are clearly an offshoot of the allegations made.</p>.<p>Insofar as charges under Atrocities Act, the court noted that the basement of the building was not a place of public view and the only persons who claimed to be present at the time of the incident were the complainant and the other employees.</p>
<p>The High Court of Karnataka has said that for an offence punishable under IPC Section 323, there should be hurt caused in the squabble. Justice M Nagaprasanna observed this in a recent judgment while quashing a criminal case.</p>.<p>The petitioner had challenged the proceedings pending before the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge in Dakshina Kannada. The crime was registered by the Puttur town police for the offences punishable under IPC Sections 504, 323, 506 and also under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.</p>.<p>The petitioner submitted that he had instituted a civil suit against one person and an order of injunction was operating against that person. The petitioner claimed that in order to settle personal scores for instituting the suit, the opposite party set up his employee (complainant) to file a complaint in Puttur police station. The complaint stated that the petitioner had gone to the basement of the newly constructed building and hurled abuses taking the name of the complainant’s caste and also threatened his life and obstructed construction activity.</p>.<p>Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the registration of crime suffered from want of bona fides, in view of the pending civil suit and the order of injunction in favour of the petitioner. The court said that for an offence punishable under IPC Section 323, there should be hurt caused in the squabble. “A perusal at the records would reveal that the wound certificate shows a simple scratch mark on the forearm and another scratch mark on the chest. Bleeding is not what is indicated. Therefore, simple scratch marks cannot become an offence under Section 323 of the IPC,” the court said, adding that IPC Sections 504 and 506 are clearly an offshoot of the allegations made.</p>.<p>Insofar as charges under Atrocities Act, the court noted that the basement of the building was not a place of public view and the only persons who claimed to be present at the time of the incident were the complainant and the other employees.</p>
