Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 991 (ALL)

VIJAY BAJPAL v. STATE OF U P

2008-05-02

V.D.CHATURVEDI

body2008
( 1 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that from the perusal of the F. I. R. and the statement of the witnesses, the offence under Section 504 IPC is not made out. In this regard, he relies upon the pronouncement given by the another single judge Bench of this Court in criminal revision No. 1699 of 1990 Jodh Singh v. State of u. P. He also argues that in view of the judgment given by Honble Apex Court, the financier is entitled to take the possession of the vehicle in case of default of payment in installments. ( 2 ) RELYING upon the judgment given in jodh Singh v. State of U. P. , he insists that since the abuses are not reproduced in the f. I. R. , hence it cannot be ascertained that the words spoken are or not capable of giving provocation to any other person. ( 3 ) IT is true that in case of default of payment of installments, the financier is entitled to take the possession of the vehicle financed by it but there is nothing entitling the financier to abuse or assault the loanee or to take forcibly the key of the vehicle. ( 4 ) ONE may cause the insult to another not only by words spoken but also by his act and conduct. It is alleged in the F. I. R. that the accused became adamant to beat the complainant; the accused has forcibly snatched the key of the vehicle and has abused the complainant. These allegations are sufficient to insult the complainant and such insult is sufficient to provoke the complainant to break the public peace. ( 5 ) THERE is no abuse which may not be indecent, ugly or unpleasant. The rule of decency requires that if any indecent, ugly or unpleasant words were uttered by the accused, such words should not be reproduced in the civilized society because such words always make the atmosphere unpleasant. If any such word is reproduced in the F. I. R. , such word is bound to be reproduced in the court also. ( 6 ) THE Courts are known for its discipline, decorum and decency. The reproduction or the repeated reproduction of such abuses in Court is neither proper nor justified especially when the same meaning may be conveyed by using the word "abuse". ( 6 ) THE Courts are known for its discipline, decorum and decency. The reproduction or the repeated reproduction of such abuses in Court is neither proper nor justified especially when the same meaning may be conveyed by using the word "abuse". ( 7 ) HENCE the complainant has simply observed the rule of decency by not reproducing the indecent, ugly or unpleasant words spoken by the accused, which have insulted him. He has rightly used the word "abuse" to convey the meaning of those words which were uttered by the petitioner against the complainant. This aspect was not considered by the brother Judge in Jodh Singh v. State of U. P. (supra ). ( 8 ) I am of the view that the reproduction of the indecent and unpleasant words constituting the abuse was not necessary in the f. I. R. Beside the abuses, the act of assault and the act of snatching forcibly the key of the vehicle was also insulting for a respectable person. ( 9 ) I do not find any substance in the petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed. .