‘Pepper spray dangerous weapon, can’t be used for self-defense’: Karnataka High Court

613

The Karnataka High Court recently made a significant ruling in a case involving the use of pepper spray, refusing to quash criminal proceedings against a director of C Krishnaiah Chetty and Company Private Limited and his wife.

The case stemmed from an incident where the director and his wife allegedly used pepper spray on individuals who were attempting to interfere with their property.

The order was issued on April 22 by Justice M Nagaprasanna, who presided over a petition seeking to dismiss criminal charges against the director and his wife.

The incident occurred in the context of a property dispute where an injunction had been obtained to prevent the director from making changes to certain walls and partitions.

It was alleged that when employees associated with the injunction went to seal the property gate with a wall, an altercation ensued, resulting in the use of pepper spray by the director and his wife.

Also Read: EC asks Karnataka BJP to take down objectionable post targeting Congress

During the court proceedings, the counsel representing the accused argued that the spray was used in self-defense after the wife sustained a knee injury. They contended that the criminal complaint against them was motivated by malice and should not be pursued.

In response, the opposing counsel argued against quashing the case, emphasising that self-defense does not justify the use of pepper spray to injure others. Furthermore, it was asserted that pepper spray qualifies as a deadly weapon under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The bench of the Karnataka High Court, in its ruling, acknowledged that pepper spray could indeed be categorised as a dangerous weapon under the IPC. While acknowledging that there was no previous Indian legal precedent specifically addressing pepper spray as a dangerous weapon, the bench referenced American legal precedents where such chemical irritants were deemed harmful.

Justice Nagaprasanna emphasised that the use of pepper spray could not be justified as an act of self-defence in this case, as there was no immediate threat or danger to the life of the accused’s wife. Consequently, the court ruled that the case warranted further investigation rather than being dismissed outright.