Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 385 (PAT)

Md. Hasnain v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-21

MADHAVENDRA SARAN

body2007
Judgment Madhavendra Saran, J. 1. This application under Sec. 482 of the Cdde of Criminal Procedure (in short as the Code) has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding and also the order dated 9.12.1997 passed by Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 541(C) of 1995 whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sec. 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 in short is that on 23.6.1995 at 9.00 PM while the complainant was sitting with other friends including Suresh Tiwary at the Bus Stand of Patna Junction then eight-ten persons came there and called Suresh Tiwary. It is said that they assaulted Suresh Tiwary and took him away in a Tempo. The complainant began to search Suresh Tiwary during course of which he reached Kotwali Police Station at 8 AM. Petitioner Md. Hasnain, Officer-in-charge of Kotwali Police Station was present there who on being asked told that Suresh Tiwary is accused in a theft case. The complainant denied the allegation and informed that he has filed an F.I.R. upon which the petitioner became angry and used unparliamentary language and asked him to leave the police station otherwise he would be pushed out. He also torn the F.I.R. into pieces. 3. It appears that the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and during inquiry under Sec.202 of the Code three witnesses were examined and the learned Magistrate after being satisfied that there was sufficient ground for proceeding further against the petitioner under Sec. 504 IPC, ordered for issuance of summons against him. Against the said order dated 9.12.1997 the petitioner has preferred the present application for quashing before this Court. 4. It has been contended that on the basis of allegations made in the petition of complaint no case under Sec. 504 IPC is made out. He contended that if the insult alleged consisted of spoken words only it would be essential that the word should be stated in the complaint petition in order to ascertain whether or not, the word so used would constitute an insult to the mind of an ordinary person. 5. Sec. 504 I.PC. seeks to punish a person who intentionally insults to provoke breach of peace. Sec. 504 IPC reads as follows: "504. 5. Sec. 504 I.PC. seeks to punish a person who intentionally insults to provoke breach of peace. Sec. 504 IPC reads as follows: "504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.-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 extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." 6. In the complaint petition it has been said that in course of search of Suresh Tiwary the complainant reached Kotwali Police Station where the petitioner being officer incharge was sitting. He told the complainant that his man is an accused in a theft case. When the complainant challenged the allegation, the petitioner became angry and used unparliamentary language and asked him to leave the police station otherwise he would be compelled to go away. In the complaint petition the abusive words used by the petitioner has not been stated. An insult-even if a gross insult is not an offence in itself under this section. The section refers to an insult intentionally inflicted and which is likely to result in a breach of peace. In absence of particular words spoken by the petitioner it is difficult to ascertain whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. 7. It is thus necessary that actual words used or supposed to have been used by the petitioner accused which the complainant understood to be words of insult should be mentioned in the petition of complaint otherwise the Court would not be in a position to decide whether the words used amounted to intentional insult. Mere allegation that the petitioner used unparliamentary language and thereby abused the complainant, in my considered opinion, would not be sufficient to bring the allegation within purview of Sec. 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 to argue the matter. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this application is allowed and the impugned order of cognizance dated 9.12.1997 passed against the petitioner is hereby quashed.