Mere Use Of Abusive Language Or Being Discourteous/Rude By Itself Doesn't Amount To Offence U/S 504 IPC: Allahabad HC

The court added that for an act to come under the purview of this offence, it has to be shown that the nature of abusive language or insult was such that is likely to insult a person or to commit a breach of the peace or commit an offence

A bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed thus while dealing with an application filed under Section 482 CrPC challenging an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate summoning the applicant, in a complaint case, for offences under Sections 379, 504 and 506 IPC.

Case in brief

As per the complaint filed in the case, the allegations were to the effect that the complaint had tied his goat near his house and left the village. Upon returning, he discovered that his goat was missing and he was informed by villagers that the accused had taken it. Upon confronting the accused at their house, the complainant found the goat there. When he asked for its return, the accused verbally abused and threatened him.

High Court's observations

The Court, at the outset, noted that the question as to whether the goat was removed and the dispute about the statement of the witnesses cannot be gone into in the exercise of the powers under section 482 CrPC and the same is a subject matter of trial.

The Court added that while deciding an application under section 482 CrPC, the HC is enjoined with the duty to take the allegations in the complaint and the statements on the face of it and consider the same to be correct.

“On the face of the allegations, the removal of the goat without the consent of the complainant is with dishonest intention and no explanation has been offered by the applicants with regard to any bonafide claim, right or interest in the goat in question. Under the circumstances prima facie the offence under section 379 IPC is made out against the applicants,” the Court noted.

Regarding the commission of an offence under section 506 IPC, the Court noted that the accused had allegedly threatened the complainant in a manner that caused alarm, with the intent to deter the complainant from returning to their house. This led to a prima facie conclusion that under Section 506 IPC was established against the accused.

Insofar as the case against the applicant under Section 504 of IPC was concerned, the Court noted that the only allegations against the applicants were that abusive language was used by them, however, the nature of abusive language had neither been elaborated in the complaint nor in the statements of witnesses.

In this regard, the Court relied upon Apex Court's ruling in the case of Mohammad Wajid vs State of U P | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 624 wherein it was observed that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, IPC 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.

Against this backdrop, noting that the allegations in the complaint are wholly vague, the Court opined that it cannot be said that the offence under Section 504 IPC was attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Consequently, the application was partly allowed by setting aside the summoning order to the extent of the summoning of the accused for the offence under Section 504 of the IPC.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Rakesh Dubey

Counsel for Opposite Party: GA,

Case title - Dhirendra And 2 Ors vs. State of U.P. and Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 86 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18245 of 2018]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 86

Click here to read/download Order