Bengaluru High Court Dismisses Congress Leader's Petition in Threat Case Against Municipal Commissioner
The Karnataka High Court has firmly rejected a petition filed by Congress functionary BV Rajeev Gowda, who sought to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him. The case involves allegations that Gowda threatened Sidlaghatta City Municipal Council Commissioner Amrutha Gowda over the removal of unauthorised banners promoting a film featuring a minister's son.
Court Cites Supreme Court Precedent on Language and Intent
Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, referenced Supreme Court rulings to emphasize that even the use of filthy language, depending on context and intent, can constitute an offence of insulting a woman's modesty. The judge noted that the alleged abuses warrant thorough investigation at the very least.
Background of the Incident and Allegations
The controversy began when Municipal Commissioner Amrutha Gowda, along with a health inspector, oversaw the clearance of film promotion banners that were obstructing public spaces. On January 12, BV Rajeev Gowda reportedly called the commissioner on her mobile phone and allegedly subjected her to abusive language and threats. The commissioner, described as terrified and mentally traumatised, subsequently filed a formal complaint leading to the FIR.
Judicial Surprise Over Non-Invocation of Section 79 of BNS
During the proceedings, Gowda challenged the FIR by arguing that most of the offences listed were bailable. However, Justice Nagaprasanna expressed surprise and concern that the police had not invoked Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The judge elaborated that this provision explicitly criminalizes acts intended to insult a woman's modesty through words, sounds, gestures, or actions, carrying penalties of up to three years imprisonment and fines.
"It is a cognizable offence. It is difficult to comprehend how the prosecution did not invoke this offence, notwithstanding the nature of the conversation attributed to the petitioner, as it was against a woman who is a public servant," Justice Nagaprasanna remarked. The judge further emphasized that individuals who have served as lawmakers are expected to exercise restraint, especially when addressing women public servants performing their statutory duties.
Court's Observations on Unauthorised Banners and Civic Responsibility
In a broader commentary on urban governance, Justice Nagaprasanna highlighted the public nuisance caused by indiscriminate erection of banners and flexes across cities. The judge pointed out that such structures impede movement, degrade civic aesthetics, and often violate the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981.
"It is high time that the state wakes up and enforces the law in earnest against unauthorised banners, placards, and flexes," the judge asserted, criticizing the state's apparent indifference to the rampant proliferation of these materials in public spaces.
Upholding the Rights of Public Servants
Justice Nagaprasanna underscored the importance of protecting public servants who diligently perform their lawful duties. The judge stated that no individual has the license to intimidate or abuse a public servant merely for discharging public functions. Abuse aimed at deterring or obstructing official duties, the court noted, would inevitably attract penal consequences.
In dismissing the petition, the High Court reinforced the principle that accountability and respect for law must prevail, particularly in cases involving allegations against individuals in positions of public trust.
