Pepper Spray A Dangerous Weapon, Can't Be Used For Private Defense When There's No Imminent Threat Or Danger Caused To Life: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court refused to quash a criminal case against C Ganesh Narayan, the Director of C.Krishniah Chetty & Company Private Limited and his wife accused of using pepper spray on the complainant who along with other security personnel is alleged of attempted to interfere with the petitioners' property.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition and said “The 2nd petitioner could not have used pepper spray as private defence, as prima facie there was no imminent threat or danger caused to her life. Therefore, the case at hand would require investigation in the least.”

As per the prosecution case, the complainant Rajdeep Das is an employee of the company. On 21-01-2023 it appears that one Vinod Hayagriv filed an injunction suit against the 1st petitioner to restrain the petitioner from making any changes, construction of walls, partitions and other structures that restrict all round movement of people and vehicles around the building.

It was stated that the concerned Court, in terms of its order dated 28-03-2023, granted an interim injunction against all the parties. After obtaining the interim order on 07-04-2023 Vinod Hayagriv attempted to construct a wall to seal the gate of the petitioners. It is thereafter, that the dispute between the two arose and appears to have gone amiss.

It was alleged that on 29-04-2023 the petitioners, when the employees of Vinod Hayagriv attempted to interfere with the petitioners' property, are said to have indulged in a fight both verbal and physical, using a pepper spray. Following this an offence came to be registered under sections 323, 324, 341, 427, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC.

The petitioners argued that they were forced to use pepper spray in their defence and that is protected under Section 100 of the IPC. It was stated that they had to do so on account of the 2nd respondent and other security personnel attempting to interfere with the petitioners' property and the 2nd petitioner had injured her knee and, therefore, the petitioners too registered a complaint which became a crime in Crime No.43 of 2023. 

Considering the submission that the usage of pepper spray is said to be for the said private defence, it was stated that a pepper spray is not used as a dangerous weapon, for it to become an offence under Section 324 of the IPC.

The court said “There is no determination by any law being laid down in this country with regard to usage of pepper spray being a dangerous weapon. But, a Court in the United States of America in PEOPLE v.SANDEL 84 N.Y.S. 3d 340 (N.Y. Sup.Ct.2018) has held that noxious chemical sprays, like pepper sprays, are dangerous weapons.”

Then relying on an Apex Court judgment the court held “The petition deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. Interim order of any kind, if subsisting shall stand dissolved. It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of the CrPC and the same would not bind any other proceeding pending against the petitioners before any other fora.”

Appearance: Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta for Advocate Krutika Raghavan for Petitioners.

AAG S.A.Ahmed a/w HCGP Manjunath K for R1.

Senior Advocate D.R.Ravishankar a/w Manjunath K V For R2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 212

Case Title: C Ganesh Narayan & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.10923 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order