Short Note : 1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, recorded in Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1974, dated 9.12.1974, whereby the order of the learned Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri in Criminal Case No. 142 of 1973, dated 27.6.1974 was partially maintained under section 504 IPC and a fine of Rs. 250/- was imposed on the petitioners. 2. It is clear from the complaint itself that the petitioner No. 4 Chhotelal is aged about 75 years and he is father of petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Petitioner No. 5 is the son of petitioner No. 1 and grand-son of petitioner No. 4. They have all been involved in this case. This goes a long way to show whether the complaint filed was genuine or false. In the complaint, it is alleged that there is a long-standing enmity between the complainant and the present petitioners. With this, background, I have to judge whether the complaint is true or false. The alleged incident took place on 22.5.1972 and the complaint is filed on 7.7.1972. Even though it is alleged that the first information report was sent on 23.5.1972, there is no indication in the file to that effect at all. On the contrary, from the file, it is clear that the complainant has not explained the delay from 22.5.1972 upto 7.7.1972. Non-explanation of the delay in filing this complaint itself is a ground to hold that the story put forward in the complaint is of doubtful nature and it cannot be believed. The complainant, in his complaint has stated that the accused abused him and the intention of abusing was to lower the prestige of his in the society and defame him. In the statement given before the Court also, that is the grievance made by the complainant. He has stated that while the accused were taking out the tube light, he, with a folded hand said to them that they should refrain from doing this. But, on the contrary, they continued abusing him. The complainant or his witnesses have not stated as to which of the applicants removed the tube light. Neither they have said as to what were the abuses given by the petitioners individually. But, on the contrary, they continued abusing him. The complainant or his witnesses have not stated as to which of the applicants removed the tube light. Neither they have said as to what were the abuses given by the petitioners individually. A perusal of Section 504 IPC win indicate that there should be an intentional insult, that insult must be such as to given provocation to the person insulted and thirdly, there should be an intention that such provocation should cause or knowledge that such provocation was likely to cause the person so insulted to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. There is no proof whatsoever in the whole of the evidence regarding the third ingredient that because of the alleged insult, the complainant was so provoked as to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. On the contrary, the evidence is that he with folded hand, requested the applicants not to indulge in abusing him and to refrain from taking the tube light. Therefore, this ingredient is completely missing from the evidence produced. Mere using of abusive language will not amount to an offence under Section 504 IPC. It is held in Brindaban Agarwal vs. Mohanlal, 1967 MPLJ 20, as under: "Held, that it was not every insult that can be classed as intentional insult coming within the purview of Section 504, Indian Penal Code. Where the abusive language was used by one in such circumstances that it could not possibly have been intended to be understood literally by the person addressed, it cannot be said to amount to any intentional insult. Further what is material is that the use of the abusive language must be with the intention of provoking the person addressed to commit a breach of the peace. The actual reaction on the occasion of the person addressed would not be relevant. The abusive language has always to be examined in the light of the circumstances then prevailing as also having regard to the status of the persons concerned." 3. Therefore, as this ingredient is not proved and as there is a serious defect of delay of filing the complaint after two months which creates a doubt regarding the genuineness of the complaint, I am of the view that the revision deserves to be accepted. Revision allowed and conviction and sentence set aside.