Merely Abusing Complainant Does Not Constitute Offence U/s 504 IPC; Intention To Provoke Him To Break Public Peace Necessary: Bombay HC

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in a judgment has held that a mere allegation that the accused abused the complainant does not itself satisfy the ingredients of offence under section 504 of IPC. Section 504 speaks of 'Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace'. The Bench of Justice Rohit B. Deo observed that in the present case, the material on record does not disclose the ingredients of section 504 IPC and therefore quashed the order of issuance of process under this provision. In this regard the Court reiterated that : "The ingredients are (i) intentional insult (ii) giving provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence." However considering the case at hand, the Court confirmed the issuance of process under section 506 of IPC. Section 506 speaks of 'Punishment for criminal intimidation'. Case in brief The complainant in this case alleged that the accused had been threatening and harassing the complainant to give a certain land which he owned to the accused. Hence the complainant reported this to the police following which, the Court of Magistrate ordered issuance of process for offences punishable under sections 504 and 506 of IPC. The accused (applicant) challenged this order of issuance of process in the Sessions Court, which was dismissed. Thereby the accused approached the Bombay High Court. Arguments The counsel for the accused submitted that the Magistrate had erred in issuing the process as no inquiry was conducted and there was no application of judicial mind. He further submitted that even if no reasons need to be stated in the order of issuance of process, in this case the material on record is insufficient to infer the commission of offences under section 504 and 506 IPC. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr, [Cri. Appeal 759/2019(arising out of SLP (CRI.) 4820/2017)]. The counsel for the complainant relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Dy. Chief Controller of Imports &Exports vs. Roshanlal Agarwal and Ors [(2003)4 SCC 139] to submit that a reasoned order is not necessary for the issuance of order of process. Courts Observation The Court came to the conclusion that in the case at hand the ingredients of section 504 are not disclosed and observed the following: "All that is alleged, without spelling out the words used, is that the accused abused the complainant. Such allegation does not satisfy the ingredients of offence punishable under section 504 of IPC, and to that extent the learned Magistrate clearly erred in issuing process." However the Court did not find fault in the issuance of process with respect to section 506 IPC (Criminal intimidation) as it was specifically alleged that the complainant was threatened he would be killed if he do not give away the land."Threat of injury to person is alleged in the complaint and the verification statement. It is specifically alleged that the threat was issued to force the complainant to give away the land to the accused. In essence, the allegation is that the threat to kill was issued to cause the complainant to do any act which he is not legally bound to do. I am satisfied that no fault can be found with the order of issuance of process for offence punishable under section 506 of IPC," it said.With respect to the question of the necessity of stating reasons and application of judicial mind by a Magistrate while issuing the order of process, the Court observed that an order of issuance of process is not rendered vulnerable due to absence of reasons. The Court further observed the following: "While it is trite law that summoning a person to face criminal prosecution is a serious matter and judicial mind must be applied to the materiel on record before issuing process, the application of judicial mind can be inferred and presumed if the material on record, as is discernible from the complaint and the verification statement is sufficient to make out a case for trial."Case Title: Subhash Mishrilal Jain v. Laxman Kondiba AswarClick Here to Read/Download The Judgment

Merely Abusing Complainant Does Not Constitute Offence U/s 504 IPC; Intention To Provoke Him To Break Public Peace Necessary: Bombay HC

AK Neslin

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Merely Abusing Complainant Does Not Constitute Offence U/s 504 IPC; Intention To Provoke Him To Break Public Peace Necessary: Bombay HC

AK Neslin

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers