Stray Remark Calling Complainant 'Mad' May Be Rude But It Doesn't Constitute Offence U/s 504 IPC: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed thus while setting aside an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate summoning the petitioner, in a complaint case, for an offence under Section 504 IPC for allegedly calling the complainant a 'mad person'.

“…it appears that it was a stray statement made in a careless manner, not intending that it may provoke a person to break the public peace or commit any other offence. Even if, for the sake of argument, uttering of such words are taken as intentional insult however in my opinion the same cannot be construed as of such degree so as to provoke any person to cause breach of peace,” the Court remarked.

The bench further noted that more often than not, in an informal atmosphere, such remarks may be carelessly thrown and may even form part of the casual conversation “having no criminal element for intentional causing of breach of peace”.

The case in brief

Essentially, the complainant (Dashrath Kumar Dixit), an advocate by profession, filed a complaint case before the CJM Court against the petitioner (Sangeeta JK) and ten others under section 500 IPC with the allegations that he was called a mad person by the petitioner.

On the basis of the above allegations, the court proceeded to record the statements of the complainant under section 200 CrPC and of his witnesses under section 202 CrPC and thereafter, passed an order summoning only the petitioner under section 504 IPC.

The accused-petitioner preferred a revision before District Judge, Varanasi, assailing the summoning order, which affirmed the order of summoning. Challenging both orders, the petitioner moved the HC.

Before the HC, the counsel for the petitioner contended that the incident allegedly happened in May 2017 the complaint had been filed more than a year thereafter.

It was also submitted that in his statement, the complainant did not show anything which could have been considered as constituting an offence under section 504 IPC as there had not been any intentional insult which may be construed as provocation for breaking public peace or to commit an offence.

Court's observations

Perusing the statement in question, the Court noted that the only allegation against the petitioner was that in front of several others, participating in the meeting, she said that this person (the complainant) is mad.

However, the Court further observed, from all the facts and circumstances, it appeared that it was a stray statement made carelessly, not intending that it may provoke a person to break the public peace or commit any other offence.

The Court also opined that even if, for the sake of argument, uttering of such words are taken as an intentional insult, however, the same cannot be construed as of such degree to provoke any person to cause a breach of peace.

Further, perusing the summoning order, the court stressed that before issuance of process in the background of provisions of law under section 204 CrPC, the Magistrate has to apply its judicial mind.

“Magistrate has to find out whether commission of an offence is disclosed from the material before him and that he has to go through the evidence and apply his judicial mind for this limited purpose, on the other hand the law says that he has to avoid meticulous analysis of the evidence and has not to hold a mini trial,” the Court further added.

In view of this, finding that in the impugned orders, the concerned courts failed to apply the law in the correct perspective, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders.

Case title - Judith Maria Monika Killer @ Sangeeta J.K. vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 16

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 16

Click Here To Read/Download Order