Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 105 (RAJ)

Habib Qureshi v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-08

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 24.11.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Sumerpur in Cr. Case No. 919/2013(1359/2012) whereby the learned Magistrate refused to take cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 IPC but proceeded against him for the offence under Section 504 IPC as well as the order dated 3.6.2015 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sumerpur affirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate in a revision preferred by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel Mr. Sharma submits that in the entire statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. there is not even a whisper of an allegation that the petitioner abused him with intention of provoking breach of peace. The complainant's statement only indicates that the petitioner already continued to slap him for 15 minutes. He urges that for proceeding in a complaint case, the complainant has to lead evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. disclosing the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged and then only the accused can be proceeded against. He urges that as there is no allegation of the complainant regarding the petitioner abusing in the incident, apparently the offence under Section 504 IPC cannot be held to be made out. Thus, he implores the Court to quash the impugned orders. 3. Per contra, learned P.P. and the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. They urge that though the complainant did not specifically allege in his statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner hurled abuses at him thereby provoking him into towards breach of peace but as per them, the statements of the witnesses examined in the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. do indicate such set of events. They thus urged that the material available on record discloses the necessary ingredients of the offence under section 504 IPC and hence this Court should not be persuaded to interfere in the impugned orders by exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 5. Manifestly, the complainant upon being examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. did not even raise a whisper that he was abused by the accused. Thus, the substantive evidence led by the complainant in support of his complaint lacks any allegation setting out necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 504 IPC. The complainant's mother Smt. Gheesi Bai when examined in enquiry conducted by the police under Section 202 Cr.P.C. alleged that the petitioner hurled foul abuses at the complainant. However, said statement is silent on the aspect that the so called abuses provoked breach of peace. 6. In this view of the matter, I am of the firm opinion that the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 504 IPC are not made out from the admitted allegations of the complainant and the report of inquiry submitted by police under section 202 Cr.P.C. Thus, the impugned orders are grossly bad in the eye of law and cannot sustained. 7. Resultantly, the instant misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 24.11.2012 whereby cognizance was taken and affirmed against the petitioner for the offence under section 504 IPC and 3.6.2015 are quashed and set aside.