Essential Ingredients Of Section 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code : Supreme Court Explains

The Supreme Court recently held that for an offence of criminal intimidation to be made out under Section 506 (Punishment For Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code,1860 it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant.A division bench of Justice B R Gavai and Justice J B Pardiwala observed:"A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant."For reference, Section 506 of the IPC is as follows:“Section 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation. —Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."As regards Section 504 IPC (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), the Court held :"Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant - In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant"In the said case, the Apex Court was examining the ingredients of Sections 395, 504, 506 and 323 of the IPC, to see whether the said case was a fit case for quashing of the FIR. The Supreme Court observed that the criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings."An accused has a legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever bad his antecedents may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose commission of any offence or his case falls within one of the parameters as laid down by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), then the Court should not decline to quash the criminal case only on the ground that the accused is a history sheeter."In this case, an FIR was lodged against the accused alleging offences punishable under Sections 395, 504, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). As the Allahabad High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings/FIR, the accused had approached the Apex Court. For this purpose, the Supreme Court analyzed the ingredients, for each offence including Section 506 of the IPC. The Top Court, referring to the allegations levelled, noted that the entire case put up by the first informant on the face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated. It was further noted that the FIR, was lodged after a period of more than one year without disclosing the date and time of the alleged incident.Thus Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused. Mohammad Wajid vs State of U P | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 | 2023 INSC 683Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 482 - When it comes to quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings, the criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to quash the criminal proceedings. An accused has a legitimate right to say before the Court that howsoever bad his antecedents may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose commission of any offence or his case falls within one of the parameters as laid down by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal, then the Court should not decline to quash the criminal case only on the ground that the accused is a history sheeter. Initiation of prosecution has...

Essential Ingredients Of Section 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code : Supreme Court Explains

Sheryl Sebastian

Tags