Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1203 (PAT)

S. L. Karn v. State Of Bihar

2006-12-07

DHARNIDHAR JHA

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, leanred counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petition seeks quashing of order of cognizance dated 25.7.2003 by which the petitioners who are officers of different grades of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and are alleged to have committed the offence under sections 500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code for which they have been summoned by the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in Complainnt Case No. 111/03. The complainant and his family members were holding the telephone connections as indicated in the petition of complainant at page 3 and claims to have paid up all the bills which were served upon them regarding the use of the three telephones. It is alleged that after 18.6.2002 the complainant and his family members could not receive any bill in respect of their telephones and they filed different petitions before different authorities and some of the complaints against the department was published in newspapers also but that could not persuade the petitioners to mend their ways of discharging their duties. Lastly, when the complainant went to the office of the petitioners to make enquiries and also to inform them about the legal notice which had been served upon them, they told him that the advocates and courts could not do any harm to the petitioners and that the complainant should simply pick up his bills and get lost from the office of the petitioners. The complainant was also branded a cheat and dishonest fellow. Besides, he was told by the petitioners that they used to sit with the Chief Minister and that the complainant was merely the Pramukh of the Block. 3. After holding the usual enquiry under sec. 202 Cr.P.C. the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order. 4. The simple question which has been raised before me is whether an offence under sec. 500 I.P.C., i.e., of defamation could be taken cognizance of by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and whether the facts alleged constituted an offence under sec. 504 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party conceded that in the light of the provision of Section 199 Cr.P.C., the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not correct in taking Cognizance of offence under sec. 504 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party conceded that in the light of the provision of Section 199 Cr.P.C., the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not correct in taking Cognizance of offence under sec. 500 I.P.C. because his jurisdiction was completely ousted by that provision which empowers the Sessions Judge to take cognizance and try the offence. 5. Learned counsel thereafter stood his ground and by taking me through the relevant part of the provision of sec. 504 I.P.C submitted that so far offence which punishes "intimidation and insult with intent to provoke the breach of the peace" the cognizance was rightiy taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and that the petitioners were rightly summoned. 6. Section 504 of the I.P.C. reads as under:- "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 extent to two years, or with fine, or with both." 7. If one goes through the above noted provision, one could find that for constituting an offence under sec. 504 of the I.P.C. the following ingredients are required to be indicated: (1) There should be insult (2) That the insult should be intentional (3) The insult should give provocation to any person. (a) intending or knowing that such provocation would likely cause him to break the public peace, or (b) to commit any other offence 8. It is hardly required to be noted down that if any of the ingredients which constitute an offence is not established by facts alleged, then no Court can hold that the facts constitute a particular offence. It is well known that the facts alleged in the petition of complaint have to be treated as true for purposes of finding out the constitution of any offence. There are a series of decisions holding like the above. It may be appropriate to point out that in one such decision of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1947, the Apex Court considered the conditions or cases in which an order of summoning or for that matter prosecution could be set aside. There are a series of decisions holding like the above. It may be appropriate to point out that in one such decision of Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1947, the Apex Court considered the conditions or cases in which an order of summoning or for that matter prosecution could be set aside. There were four conditions laid down and if one considers that law, then one could find that taking the allegation made in the petition of complaint to be true on their face value, if no offence is constituted then order of summoning should not be allowed to stand. International insult and thereby giving provocation are such things which are required to be alleged and asserted. Not only that it has also to be alleged and asserted that insult was of such a dergree as to provoke the complainant/informant to break public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere insult is never an offence under sec. 504 of the I.P.C. It must be followed by the resultant surge inside the complaint to break the peace or to commit an offence. If facts do not support that the complainant was so provocated as to break the public peace or to commit an offence, it could not be an offence which is punishable under section 504 I.P.C. This is what could be said while considering the application of section 504 of the I.P.C. 9. After having gone through the petition of complaint, what I find is that there are mere allegations labelling the complainant as a cheat and dishonest person. It also appears that the complainant might have been demeaned by being told that he was an ordinary Pramukh and the two of the petitioners were having easy access to the Chief Minister and they used to enjoy his company. This is in my view ample provocation but that by itself does not constitute an offence if the complainant does not say, as he has not, that he felt liek breaking the peace or committing an offence. In that view of the matter, I do not find that an offence punishable under sec. 504 I.P.C. is made out. 10. In view of the above, I find that there is merit in the petition and in that light the order taking cognizance and the subsequent proceeding appear a rank of misuse of the process of the Court. In that view of the matter, I do not find that an offence punishable under sec. 504 I.P.C. is made out. 10. In view of the above, I find that there is merit in the petition and in that light the order taking cognizance and the subsequent proceeding appear a rank of misuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, they are quashed. The petition is allowed.