Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Abdul Majid & Ors vs State Of Raj. & Anr on 14 June, 2012
Equivalent citations: 2012 CRI. L. J. 4392, (2013) 122 ALLINDCAS 726 (RAJ), (2012) 4 WLC (RAJ) 781, (2013) 2 CRIMES 599
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1687/2010
Abdul Majid & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
:::
JUDGMENT
:::
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1687/2010
Abdul Majid & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Date of Judgment :: 14 June, 2012.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Mr.NL Joshi, for the petitioners.
Mr.AR Nikub, PP, for the respondent State.
Mr.JR Beniwal, Sr.Adv. A/w Mr.Shankar Rajpurohit, for the
respondent no.2.
...
Reportable
BY THE COURT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 31.1.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Churu taking cognizance against them for the offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC as affirmed in revision by order dated 24.5.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu.
Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent no.2/complainant filed a complaint with the S.P., Churu on 26.11.2006 alleging therein that he and his family members own and possess a plot located at Ward No.15, Mohalla Vyoparian, Churu. The complainant allegedly SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1687/2010 Abdul Majid & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2) had erected a temporary tin shed in the plot and a boundary wall was raised by erecting stone slabs . The complainant allegedly carried on the business of selling fodder, wood etc. from the said plot. He further alleged that on 15.11.2006 when he was sitting at his the plot under the tin shed, at that time, his uncle Abdul Majid, Bilal and Saleem (the petitioners) came inside the plot with the intention of assaulting him and taking possession of the plot. It is alleged that the accused persons before entering into his plot started abusing him and threatened to kill him. He was assaulted by the three accused petitioners as a result whereof he received injuries on the left ankle and other parts of the body. It was further stated that various persons of the locality collected there on hearing the commotion and intervened and saved him from further assault. The complainant also alleged in his complaint that the accused persons were also accompanied by two policemen on a white motorcycle. One of the policemen namely, Banwari Lal exhorted that they would facilitate the possession of the plot by Majid and others. When the complainant showed the title documents of the plot as well as a stay order passed by the Court, the policemen allegedly stated that the court's order was forged. The sale letter was taken away by the policemen and the complainant was threatened that he should come to the SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1687/2010 Abdul Majid & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (3) police outpost where he would be given proper treatment. It was further stated that after the policemen went away, the accused launched the assault against the complainant. The said complaint was sent to the concerned police station where an F.I.R. was registered and investigation commenced. The investigating officer upon conclusion of investigation submitted a negative final report with the finding that only a non-cognizable offence under Section 504 IPC was made out from the admitted allegations of the complaint.
The complainant submitted a protest petition and examined himself and his witnesses in support of the complaint under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C Thereafter, the learned Magistrate by order dated 31.1.2008 proceeded to summon the petitioners for the offences under Section 323 and 504 IPC. The petitioners assailed the order passed by the learned Magistrate by filing a revision. The revision filed by the petitioners too has been rejected by order dated 24.5.2010. Hence, the instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the impugned orders and all the subsequent proceedings.
Assailing the orders impugned, Mr.N.L. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the allegations of the complainant, as averred in his complaint, and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1687/2010 Abdul Majid & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (4) Cr.P.C. are accepted to be true on their face value, then too, no prima-facie case disclosing the offences under Sections 504 and 323 IPC is made out against the petitioners. It is submitted that for the purpose of invocation of the offence under Section 504 IPC, the insult which is referred to in the Section should have been given with the intention or knowledge that such insult is likely to provoke the person insulted to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence. It is submitted that on a plain reading of the Section, it becomes apparent that before the Section can be applied, the court has to arrive at a finding that the insult was given by the accused to the aggrieved person, intending or knowing that such insult would lead the aggrieved person to commit breach of public peace or an offence. It is urged that there is no such allegation of the complainant that the insult/abuses given by the accused led him towards breach of public peace or for committing an offence. It is thus submitted that ex-facie the learned Magistrate has committed grave error in taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 504 IPC. It is also submitted that the revisional court has also erred in affirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is thus contended that further proceedings against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 504 and 323 IPC amount to an abuse of process of court and SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1687/2010 Abdul Majid & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (5) hence, deserve to be quashed.
Per contra, learned PP and learned senior counsel Mr.JR Beniwal assisted by Mr.Shankar Rajpurohit have opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners.
Mr.J.R. Beniwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.2/complainant has vehemently opposed the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that by the very fact that the petitioners hurled abuses towards the complainant, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 504 IPC are disclosed against the petitioners. He, therefore, urged that this Court should refrain from interfering with the well reasoned summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate as affirmed by the learned revisional court.
On a consideration of the arguments advanced at bar and upon going through the material available on the record as well as the orders impugned, it is evident that the highest allegation of the complainant in his complaint as well as in the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. is that the accused came to his plot, abused and assaulted him. There is no such allegation that as a result of the abuses hurled by the accused, the complainant was led towards commission of either breach of public peace or any offence. This Court in the case of Pukhraj vs. SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1687/2010 Abdul Majid & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (6) State of Rajasthan reported in 1954 RLW 235 whilst interpreting the offence defined under Section 504 IPC has laid down that mere hurling of abuses in absence of any allegation that such abuses were given intending or knowingly that such an action would provoke the aggrieved person to break public peace or to commit an offence does not fall within the definition of the offence as prescribed under Section 504 IPC.
This Court is also of the opinion that a bare reading of the Section does not leave any room for doubt that the intentional insult which is given by the accused should be clothed with the intention or knowledge that such an insult would provoke the aggrieved person to commit breach of public peace or to commit an offence. A bare allegation of insult given without any of the fallouts as referred to in the Section, cannot give rise to an offence under Section 504 IPC.
As has already been referred to above, there is no such material available on the record either in the complaint or in the statements deposed by the complainant and his witnesses that the insult was given by the accused persons with any of the objectives as mentioned in the Section 504 I. P. C. The Section mandates that it should be alleged that the insult was made intentionally and that the accused intended or knew that it was likely that such provocation SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1687/2010 Abdul Majid & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (7) would cause the person insulted to break public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse unaccompanied by an intention or knowledge as mentioned in the Section would not fall within the purview of the offence defined in the Section.
Since none of these circumstances, apart from a bare allegation of abuses being hurled by the accused, is shown to exist from the record, the proceedings of the complaint for the offence under Section 504 IPC cannot be permitted to be continued. However, the allegations of the complainant as well as the statements of the witnesses clearly reveal that the essential ingredients of Section 323 IPC have been stated to be in existence against the accused.
Resultantly, the present misc. petition succeeds in part and whilst the order dated 31.1.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Churu as affirmed in revisional order dated 24.5.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu is hereby quashed to the extent of the offence under Section 504 IPC but the same is affirmed so far as offence under Section 323 IPC is concerned.
Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
S.Phophaliya