JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.07.2017 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar has issued summon against the petitioner for facing the trial involving the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 107 of 2016. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the Human Resource Manager of Dabur India Limited, Solan, in the state of Himachal Pradesh. The complainant-opposite party no. 2 was an employee under the said company and he was dismissed from his services as he became a habitual absentee. It is alleged that the petitioner over phone told the complainant-opposite party no. 2 to be a Jungali Adiwasi. The learned Magistrate, considering the complaint, statement under solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the inquiry witnesses found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and took cognizance for the same vide order dated 07.07.2017 in P.C.R. Case No. 107 of 2016 and issued summon. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner that even assuming for the sake of argument that the allegation against the petitioner is true in its entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out as there is no material to suggest that the insult by telling the complainant to be a Jungli Adiwasi is either intentional or it was of such a degree that it could provoke the complainant to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. 5. In support of his contention, Mr. Sinha relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2023) SCC Online SC 668, Para-22 and 23 of which reads as under: “22. What remains is section 504, IPC. In Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra, this Court had the occasion to hold that: “13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz. What remains is section 504, IPC. In Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra, this Court had the occasion to hold that: “13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz. (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC.” 23. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, we have little hesitation in holding that even though the appellant might have abused the complainant but such abuse by itself and without anything more does not warrant subjecting the appellant to face a trial, particularly in the clear absence of the ingredient of intentional insult of such a degree that it could provoke a person to break public peace or commit any other offence.” (Emphasis supplied) And also relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2019) 14 SCC 207 , Para-21 and 24 of which reads as under: “21. Section 504 IPC came up for consideration before this Court in Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715. In the said case, this Court had the occasion to examine ingredients of Section 504 IPC, which need to be present before proceeding to try a case. The Court held that in the said case, the order issuing process was challenged by filing a criminal revision. In the said case, this Court had the occasion to examine ingredients of Section 504 IPC, which need to be present before proceeding to try a case. The Court held that in the said case, the order issuing process was challenged by filing a criminal revision. This Court held that at the complaint stage, the Magistrate is merely concerned with the allegations made out in the complaint and has only to prima-facie satisfy whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. In Para 11, following principles have been laid down: (SCC pp. 48-49) “11. We are, in this case, concerned only with the question as to whether, on a reading of the complaint, a prima-facie case has been made out or not to issue process by the Magistrate. The law as regards issuance of process in criminal cases is well settled. At the complaint stage, the Magistrate is merely concerned with the allegations made out in the complaint and has only to prima facie satisfy whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and it is not the province of the Magistrate to enquire into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely limited in the sense that the Magistrate, at this stage, is expected to examine prima facie the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint. The Magistrate is not expected to embark upon a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case, but only consider the inherent probabilities apparent on the statement made in the complaint. In Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 507, this Court held that once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion in forming an opinion that there is ground for proceeding, it is not for the Higher Courts to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate. The Magistrate has to decide the question purely from the point of view of the complaint, without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.” 24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The Magistrate has to decide the question purely from the point of view of the complaint, without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.” 24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above two judgments. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in Para 13 of the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715.” (Emphasis Supplied) 6. It is further submitted by Mr. Sinha that it is admitted case of the complainant that he was issued show cause by his employer through its Deputy General Manager for being a habitual absentee and because of such notice, to wreck vengeance; this false case has been instituted against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.07.2017 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar has issued summon against the petitioner for facing the trial involving the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 107 of 2016 be quashed and set aside. 7. The learned Addl. P.P. and Ms. Saman Ahmed, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.07.2017 in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 107 of 2016 and submits that the materials in the record is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the essential ingredients punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code are: (i) The accused intentionally insulted someone. (ii) He thereby intended to give him provocation. (iii) He knew that it was likely that such provocation would cause the person commit a breach of peace or commit any other offence. And if and only if all the three above mentioned ingredients are present, then only the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, would be made out. 9. After carefully going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that there is no allegation against the petitioner of intentionally uttering the insulting words nor there is any material to suggest that the abuse was made for giving provocation to the complainant and in the absence of any provocation, certainly it can very well be said that there is no material in the record to suggest that the provocation was of such magnitude that it would cause the complainant to commit breach of peace or commit any other offence. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that even assuming for the sake of argument that the allegation against the petitioner is true in its entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. 10. Hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner more so when he is an employer of the complainant will amount to abuse of process of court and this is a fit case, where in the interest of justice, the entire criminal proceeding and the order taking cognizance be quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.07.2017 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar has issued summon against the petitioner for facing the trial involving the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 107 of 2016 is quashed and set aside. 12. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.