Samir Oraon, aged about 53 years, son of Jokhna Oraon, r/o Bishnupur, Karamtoli, P.O v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2011 of 2023 Samir Oraon, aged about 53 years, son of Jokhna Oraon, r/o Bishnupur, Karamtoli, P.O. & P.S.-Bishnupur, Dist.-Gumla, Jharkhand .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Smt. Baljeet Kaur, aged about 44 years, w/o Dr. Gaurav Arun, r/o – Arunodyay Enclave, Harihar Singh Road, P.O. & P.S.-Baraitu, Dist.- Ranchi (Jharkhand) …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioners For the State For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate : Mr. Suraj Verma, Advocate : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, Addl. P.P. : None ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. 3. Heard the parties. Though notice has validly been served upon the opposite party no.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of repeated calls. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 366 of 2016 including the order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and where under Cr.M.P. No.2011 of 2023 1 the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that though the FIR was instituted alleging attempted to commission of rape and other allied offences upon the victim by the petitioner and others, police after investigation of the case found commission of the offence punishable under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code. There is inter alia an allegation of intentionally insulting the victim. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammad Wajid & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, paragraph no. 29 and 31 of which reads as under:- “29. 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. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 31. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 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.” Cr.M.P. No.2011 of 2023 2 that as there is no allegation of the petitioner intending to provoke any person insulted, to commit a breach of peace, knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit breach of peace, the offence punishable under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code is not made out. 6. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 668, paragraph no.22 of which reads as under:- “22. What remains is section 504, IPC. In Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra7, this Court had the occasion to hold that: “13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz. (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC.” As also the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207, paragraph no. 24 of which reads as under:- Cr.M.P. No.2011 of 2023 3 “24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant’s house and abused him in filthy language to assault him and when some and attempted neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] . (Emphasis Supplied) 7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the witnesses examined during the investigation of the case including the informant has made any specific allegation against the petitioner regarding involvement in the alleged occurrence in which any specific utterances has been made and thus as there is no allegation against the petitioner that the intentional insult made by him was of such a degree that should provoke a person to breach public peace or to commit any other offence, the learned Magistrate has committed a grave illegality by taking cognizance against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 366 of 2016 including the order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection Cr.M.P. No.2011 of 2023 4 with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 366 of 2016 including the order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and submits that though specific word uttered by the petitioner has not come up during the investigation but the circumstances establishes that there is sufficient material collected during the investigation of the case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code and charge sheet having been submitted for the said offences, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance for the said offences. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is needless to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that unless and until the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code that is the insult of being such a nature as was likely to incite the person insulted to commit breach of peace or any offence, the offence punishable under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code will not be made out. 10. Now coming to the facts of the case, there is absolutely no allegation anywhere that the petitioner ever insulted any of the victims in such a manner as was likely to incite the person insulted to commit breach of peace or of any offence and in the absence of that, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Magistrate, Ranchi has committed a grave illegality by taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code. Hence this Court is of the considered opinion that Cr.M.P. No.2011 of 2023 5 continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 366 of 2016 including the order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi be quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 366 of 2016 including the order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi is quashed and set aside. 12.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 15th April, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No.2011 of 2023 6