#Districtjudgevaranasi

[seemabhatnagar]

Magistrate has to tread very cautiously before jumping to take cognizance and proceed against the accused

Judith Maria v. State of UP & Another

WP 8240/2023

Before High Court of Allahabad

The Bench of Hon’ble Madam Justice Jyotsna Sharma J on 08.01.2024 allowed the Writ of the Petitioner and quashed the Criminal Proceeding arising out of the complaint filed under section 500 IPC by the Complainant - Dashrath Kumar Dixit.

It was held prima facie no offence under section 504 IPC is made out and therefore this is a case where this court, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, should interfere to prevent and nip in the bud misuse of law, hence the impugned orders are set-aside and this petition is allowed.

Background

Present petition has been filed for getting the entire criminal proceeding quashed and summoning order of the CJM U/s 504 IPC.  

Facts

Dashrath Kumar Dixit – Complainant Advocate filed a complaint before District Magistrate, Varanasi on 15.05.2017 against Sangeeta J.K., Executive Director, Kiran Society and ten others under section 500 I.P.C.

The Inquiry Officer called parties to H.R.T.C. Auditorium on 19.05.2017 in connection with the Inquiry and in the presence of the parties, the complainant alleged that he was insulted with the following words "this person is mad".

The production of evidence during the inquiry was recorded by the Inquiry Officer - Rajesh Kumar Mishra.

On the basis of above allegations, the court proceeded to record the statements of Dashrath Kumar Dixit-the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C.

And also recorded statement of witnesses namely Vinod Kumar Goswami, Anil Kumar Gupta and Santosh Kumar Pandey under section 202 Cr.P.C.

A number of documents were produced at that stage.

Summoning order were made on 24.09.2021.

By this summoning order, Sangeeta J K was summoned under section 504 I.P.C.

The accused Sangeeta J.K. preferred a revision before District Judge, Varanasi, assailing the summoning order.

Both the sides were heard, but the revisional court affirmed the order of summoning by passing an order on 31.05.2023.

Aggrieved with the summoning order passed by the Magistrate on 24.09.2021 and affirmation of the Summoning order by the Revisional Court vide its order dt. 31.05.2023 present Writ was preferred

Submission of the petitioner

The incident allegedly happened on 19.05.2017.

And the complaint has been filed more than a year therafter i.e. on 24.09.2017.

Further that the complainant in his statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. did not show anything which could have been considered as constituting an offence under section 504 I.P.C.

And even the witnesses examined under section 202 Cr.P.C. did not state any material fact which can be taken as coming within the definition of section 504 I.P.C.

It is further submitted that the complainant had filed the complaint under section 500 I.P.C., and from the evidence produced by him, no offence under section 504 I.P.C. or any other is made out.

The complaint has been filed after lapse of one year and four months from the date of incident with a view to harass him.

Another contention is that the Magistrate took cognizance by summoning the accusedpetitioner on 24.09.2021 under section 504 I.P.C.

There is nothing to suggest that the complainant was intentionally insulted or provoked intending and knowing that such act will cause him to break the public peace.

The Magistrate took cognizance by summoning the accusedpetitioner on 24.09.2021 under section 504 I.P.C.

They cannot be relied upon and that they have colluded with the petitioner for initiating this malicious prosecution.

The complaint has been filed after lapse of one year and four months from the date of incident with a view to harass him.

Issues

From the statements given by the complainant and his witnesses, if presumed as truthful, whether offence under section 504 IPC is made out?

Whether the Magistrate applied its judicial mind to arrive at requisite satisfaction before he decided to take cognizance.

Ingredients of Section 504 IPC

intentional insult,

the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and

the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.

Issue No.1

Observation of the Court

Intentional insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.

The only allegation is that in front of several others, participating in the meeting, the accused said that this person (the complainant) is mad.

This may be noted that these words were uttered when both the sides were called in connection with an inquiry which was initiated on the basis of a number of allegations made by the complainant against the accused and her society.

It was a stray statement made in a careless manner, not intending that it may provoke a person to break the public peace or commit any other offence.

Even if, for the sake of argument, uttering of such words are taken as intentional insult however in my opinion the same cannot be construed as of such degree so as to provoke any person to cause breach of peace.

Circumstances suggest that uttering of such words could be an unintended spontaneous remark made in the prevailing atmosphere in the backdrop of number of allegations, which were flown at the accused and her society.

More often than not, in informal atmosphere such remarks may be carelessly thrown and may even form part of casual conversation having no criminal element for intentional causing of breach of peace.

Any such stray statements made by any person, may be inappropriate, improper and rude, however, in my view, they do not bring the Act within the four corners of section 504 as defined in Indian Penal Code. Definitely what may be the impact of spoken words, can only be inferred from the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case.

Issue No.2

Observation of the Court

In the case in hand, the remark was inappropriate or even rude but circumstances prima facie does not establish that it was intended to provoke the person to cause breach of peace.

The courts concerned failed to apply law in correct perspective.

Seema Bhatnagar