JUDGMENT 1. - Cognisance under section 504 IPG was taken by the learned trial court against the non-petitioners M. Moris Babu Dy. S.P. and his gunman Dhan Raj Meena Belt No. 664. The revisional court quashed the cognisance and allowed the revision of the non-petitioners vide its order dated December 13, 1995. Against this order the present action for filing the revision has been resorted to. 2. A complaint under section 324, 504 and 341 IPC was filed by the complainant petitioner (for short the complainant) against the accused non-petitioners (for short the accused) in the trial court stating therein that on Feb. 21, 1994, Barat of his younger brother Dhirendra Rediwal after completion of marriage ceremony proceeded back from Kota to Ramganj Mandi. When groom, bride and other members of marriage party returned from the temple of Mataji at Alaniya, they found some police personals inflicting fist blows with the drivers of the vehicles. When father of complainant intervened the accused Dy. S.P abused him and rushed him to the ground. Gun Man of Dy. S.P aimed pistol at the complainant. Learned Magistrate after recording the statements of the complainant and his witnesses took cognisance under section 504 IPC against the accused persons. The revisional court set aside the cognisance on the ground that no offence under section 504 IPC was ex-facie made out and also that sanction under section 197 Cr.PC. was not obtained before instituting the complaint. 3. I have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the record of the case and authorities cited at Bar. 4. It appears from the perusal of the record that national high way was blocked by the marriage party. Members of marriage party including children were wondering on the road and accident was nearly averted by the driver of Jeep of accused Dy. S.P who at the relevant time was going from Kota to Mandana. The complainant made complaint to the Human Right Commission in respect of the said incident. The Commission directed inquiry into the matter. The S.P. Kota made an inquiry and communicated his report on May 15, 1995 to the S.P. Assembly Control Jaipur. A perusal of said communication reveals that few members of marriage party were under intoxication and when Dy. S.P Moris Babu asked them not to assemble on the road, they started shouting. The Commission directed inquiry into the matter. The S.P. Kota made an inquiry and communicated his report on May 15, 1995 to the S.P. Assembly Control Jaipur. A perusal of said communication reveals that few members of marriage party were under intoxication and when Dy. S.P Moris Babu asked them not to assemble on the road, they started shouting. On the basis of statements of witnesses recorded during inquiry, the S.P. was of the view that police officials were not involved in any offence. 5. Despite the allegations of causing wrongful restraint and simple hurt against the accused the learned trial court only took cognisance under section 504 IPC. A perusal of complaint demonstrates that no specific allegation for hurling the abuses was levelled against the accused. It was vaguely stated that police personals uttered 'bastards', haramzada, etc. The complaint was filed on April 25, 1994 i.e. after the delay of two months and four days from the date of alleged incident. Fact of making complaint to the Human Right Commission was not mentioned in the complaint. 6. The question whether an offence was committed in the course of official duty or under colour of office depends on the facts of each case. One broad test for this purpose is whether the public servant if challenged, can reasonably claim, that what he does in virtue of his office. In the present case act of abusing and indulging in unruly conduct does not fall within the range and scope of official duties of police personnel's and question of sanction under section 197 Cr.PC. does not arise at all. 7. But in order to establish a case under section 504 IPC. the complainant must state and show that abusive words were actually used by the accused and those words amounted to an insult. In Pukh Raj v. State (1954 R.L.W. 235) it was held that it is necessary that the particular words spoken by the accused, should be proved in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. 8. In the case on hand the complaint is absolutely silent on this material point. It has not been established that 'actual words' were used by the accused. Thus the cognisance could not have been taken against the accused. Learned revisional court rightly quashed the order of the learned trial court. 9. 8. In the case on hand the complaint is absolutely silent on this material point. It has not been established that 'actual words' were used by the accused. Thus the cognisance could not have been taken against the accused. Learned revisional court rightly quashed the order of the learned trial court. 9. Resultantly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Record be sent back forthwith.Revision dismissed. *******