Showing posts with label S 504 of IPC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label S 504 of IPC. Show all posts

Tuesday, 25 March 2025

Supreme Court: What are essential ingredients of offence punishable U/S 504 and 506 of IPC?

  Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive language is used intentionally and is of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of events lead the person insulted to break the peace or to commit an offence under the law, the case is not taken away from the purview of the Section merely because the insulted person did not actually break the peace or commit any offence having exercised self control or having been subjected to abject terror by the offender. In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, Indian Penal Code, 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. {Para 25}


26. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, Indian Penal Code 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, Indian Penal Code if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant. In King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:


To constitute an offence Under Section 504, Indian Penal Code it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the other party to lose his temper and say or do something violent. Public peace can be broken by angry words as well as deeds.


27. A bare perusal of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code 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.


28. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, considering the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable Under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not Under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations with respect to the offence punishable Under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code can also be looked at from a different perspective. In the FIR, all that the first informant has stated is that abusive language was used by the Accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the FIR. One of the essential elements, as discussed above, constituting an offence Under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not possible to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present.


19. Applying the principles as explained aforesaid, we are of the view that none of the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable Under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code respectively are borne out.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 352/2020

Decided On: 16.01.2025

Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0134/2025, 2025 INSC 139.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.


Print Page

Supreme Court: What precautions the Magistrate should take before ordering investigation U/S 156(3) of CRPC{S 175 of BNSS}?

 Thus, there are prerequisites to be followed by the complainant before approaching the Magistrate Under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure {S 175 of BNSS} which is a discretionary remedy as the provision proceeds with the word 'may'. The Magistrate is required to exercise his mind while doing so. He should pass orders only if he is satisfied that the information reveals commission of cognizable offences and also about the necessity of police investigation for digging out of evidence neither in possession of the complainant nor can be procured without the assistance of the police. It is, thus, not necessary that in every case where a complaint has been filed Under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate should direct the Police to investigate the crime merely because an application has also been filed Under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure even though the evidence to be led by the complainant is in his possession or can be produced by summoning witnesses, with the assistance of the court or otherwise. The issue of jurisdiction also becomes important at that stage and cannot be ignored. {Para 24}


25. In fact, the Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the police only where the assistance of the Investigating Agency is necessary and the Court feels that the cause of justice is likely to suffer in the absence of investigation by the police. The Magistrate is not expected to mechanically direct investigation by the police without first examining whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, investigation by the State machinery is actually required or not. If the allegations made in the complaint are simple, where the Court can straightaway proceed to conduct the trial, the Magistrate is expected to record evidence and proceed further in the matter, instead of passing the buck to the Police Under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure{S 175 of BNSS}. Ofcourse, if the allegations made in the complaint require complex and complicated investigation which cannot be undertaken without active assistance and expertise of the State machinery, it would only be appropriate for the Magistrate to direct investigation by the police authorities. The Magistrate is, therefore, not supposed to act merely as a Post Office and needs to adopt a judicial approach while considering an application seeking investigation by the Police.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 352/2020

Decided On: 16.01.2025

Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0134/2025, 2025 INSC 139.

Print Page

Thursday, 29 December 2016

When offence of S 504 of IPC is not made out?

Section 504 of the IPC under which cognizance has been
taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate reads thus :-
“504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke
breach of the peace —
Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives
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, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both.”

11. From a reading of Section 504 of the IPC, it would be
clear that the essential ingredients of the offence are as under :
(1) That the accused insulted some person;
(2) That he did so intentionally;
(3) That he thereby gave provocation to that person;
(4) That he intended, or knew that it was likely that such
provocation would cause that person to break the
peace or to commit any other offence.
12. Mere abuse unaccompanied by an intention to cause
breach of peace or knowledge that breach of peace is likely that such
provocation would cause that person to break the peace or to commit
any other offence does not come within the offence as defined under
Section 504 of the IPC. A vague allegation that the accused abused
the opposite party in filthy language would not be sufficient to attract
the ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC. In order to attract the
ingredients of the offence under Section 504 of the IPC, it would be
necessary that actual words used or supposed to have been used
should be mentioned in the complaint/written report otherwise it
would be extremely difficult for the court to decide whether or not the
words used amounted to intentional insult. Also, the words used
which amounted to intentional insult should be such that it intended
to break the peace.
13. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has
rightly submitted that no offence under Section 504 of the IPC is
made out as the informant has not given out the actual words of abuse
in his written report and the informant has nowhere disclosed that the
insulting words used by the accused had provoked him or that the
accused intended or knew that the provocation was likely to cause the
informant either to break the peace or to commit an offence.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.33181 of 2013

Shiv Sundar Bharti 
V
 State Of Bihar

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

Date: 04-08-2016
Citation:2016 CRLJ4761 Patna
Print Page