Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Bare perusal of the contents of the impugned FIR NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined coupled with the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties, some facts, which are not in dispute, are emerged, which are required to be taken into consideration for deciding the present application. The impugned FIR is lodged on 26.12.2015 for the so-called incident of 24.12.2015 and thus, there is delay of two days in registration of impugned FIR. Further allegation and accusation against the applicant and other is that they had come at the field of the respondent no.2 and created hue and cry but when the respondent no.2 had asked for pardon, they got excited and used abusive language and also threatened them with dire consequences. However if we look at the facts of the case, it is evident that dispute is going on between the parties with regard to the approach road and prior to registration of the impugned FIR, the applicant had given written complaint before the Police Sub Inspector, Suigam Police Station as the threats were given to them to involve in false case of atrocity. Not only that, after registration of the impugned FIR, detailed representation is made to the concerned IO to collect CCTV footage of a particular place at Surat as it is the specific case of the applicant that he was not available at the place of occurrence when the so-called incident had taken place and pursuant thereto, statements of persons concerned have been recorded and also CCTV footage has been recovered, which NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined clearly goes on to show that the applicant was not found available at the place of occurrence and he was at Surat.

15 Section 504 of the I.P.C. contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive language is used intentionally and is of such a nature as would in the ordinary course of events lead the person insulted to break the peace or to commit an offence under the law, the case is not taken away from the purview of the section merely because the insulted person did not actually break the peace or commit any offence having exercised self control or having been subjected to abject terror by the offender. In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504, I.P.C., the court has to find out what, in the ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is the test for considering whether the abusive language is an intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or temperament of the complainant. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, I.P.C. if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under Section 504, I.P.C. If he merely uses abusive language against the complainant. In King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:
To constitute an offence under Section 504, I.P.C. it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the other party to lose his temper and say or do something violent. Public peace can be broken by angry words as well as deeds In Guranditta v. Emperror, AIR 1930 Lah 344 (2): (32 Cri. LJ 62), it was observed that in dealing with a case under Section 504, I.P.C. the court should try to find out what in the ordinary circumstances would have been the effect of abusive language used. Pichai Pillai v. Ramaswamy Ayyangar (1941) 42 Cri. LJ 48) (Mad.) relied on by the learned Magistrate is no authority for any proposition that no offence is committed under Section 504, I.P.C. by the accused if he uses abusive language against the complainant. In that case there was a discussion between the accused Bill Collector and the complainant in regard to the amount due by the complainant towards tax collectable by the Bill Collector. In the course of that discussion, the Bill Collector shouted against the complainant saying NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/3441/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined shameless fellow, I will shoe you. The details of the discussion and the exact circumstances leading to the shouting by the accused are not available from the brief judgement reported. It is also not known as to where exactly the occurrence took place in that case. (vide Karumanchi Veerangaiah vs. Katta Mark & Ors., 1976 Cr. LJ 1690) 16 In the case of Ronak Ashok Kedia v. State of Gujarat [Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4145 of 2012 decided on 19th November, 2014], I have explained as to what would constitute the offence punishable under Section 506(2) of the I.P.C. I may quote the observations made in paras 10, 11 and 12 as under:

18. It is required to be mentioned that it is alleged that the accused have used abusive language upon the respondent no.2 and his wife. Thus according to the respondent no.2 herein, the accused have committed offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act, which reads as under, Section 3(1)(x) reads as under :