Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

though there is no concrete evidence adduced on record by the prosecution to prove that email, which is claimed to be derogatory, was sent from the IP address of the petitioner, but even otherwise, no case under Sections 504, 506 & 507 Indian Penal Code ought to have of been registered against the petitioner. He submitted that once complainant had requested to register the case under Section 66-A of rt IT Act and aforesaid provision of law has already been struck down by Hon'ble Apex Court, there was otherwise no occasion, if any, for the police to lodge FIR, rather complaint made by the complainant ought to have been filed. While referring to the provisions contained under Sections 504, 506 & 507 of Indian Penal Code, Mr. Sood contended that no FIR could have been registered against the petitioner under aforesaid provisions of law without there being prior permission of Judicial Magistrate. He submitted that since offences committed under aforesaid provisions of law are non-cognizable, no FIR could have been registered without there being permission granted by Judicial Magistrate in terms of Section 154 Cr.P.C. While making this Court peruse contents of email, which is claimed to be derogatory and abusive, Mr. Dass further argued that in no manner, petitioner cannot be said to have extended threats to the complainant. Hence, registration of the case under Section 506 Indian Penal Code is totally uncalled-for. Similarly, Mr. Dass also referred to Section 504 of Indian Penal Code to state that there is nothing to suggest that petitioner .

notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable. True it is that offences under Sections 504 & 507 of Indian Penal Code are non-cognizable, but offence under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code is cognizable in the State of Himachal Pradesh. At this stage, it would of be apt to take note of Sections 504, 506 & 507 of Indian Penal Code:-

"Section 504 of IPC:- Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.

person, and such provocation is likely to cause a breach of the public peace or the commission of any other offence, then the ingredients of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to be satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should of have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not rt sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 Indian Penal Code. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715 : AIR 2014 SC 957]. While placing reliance upon its earlier judgment passed in Fiona Shrikhande (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court, in case titled Madhushree Datt Vs. State of Karnataka and another along with Badrinarayana Jaganathan Vs. State of Karnataka and another, (2025) 3 Supreme Court Cases 612, decided on 24.01.2025, reiterated that mere act of insulting someone, does not fulfill its requirements of Section 504 of Indian Penal Code, rather insult, must be of such a nature as to provoke the person insulted to breach the public peace or engage in criminal conduct.

24. A perusal of Section 504 IPC reveals that a mere act of insulting someone does not fulfil its requirements; the insult must be of such a nature that it provokes the person insulted to breach the public peace or engage in criminal conduct. Therefore, to establish the ingredients of Section 504 IPC, it must be demonstrated, based on the available material, that there was intentional insult with the intent or knowledge that such insult would provoke either disturbance of the public peace or the commission of any other offence.