For Offence U/S 504 IPC, Insult Must Provoke Complainant To Breach Public Peace Or Commit Offence: J&K High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
7 Nov 2024 12:05 PM IST
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court, in a recent judgment, quashed the complaint and proceedings against an accused, holding that the provisions under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were not substantiated by the complaint's allegations.
The court, exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, underscored the necessity of specific allegations to sustain a charge under Section 504, IPC, which addresses intentional insult aimed at provoking a breach of peace.
Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, in delivering the judgment, stated, “For an offence under Section 504, it is incumbent that the accused's insult provokes the complainant, thereby leading to breach of peace or commission of an offence. Moreover, the complaint must specify the actual words used to insult.” The court emphasized that a mere assertion of insult without detailing the language or context fails to meet the statutory requirement under Section 504.
The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed a significant sum and subsequently refused to repay, instead becoming violent and threatening dire consequences. However, the court found the complaint deficient in providing the required particulars to establish a charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506.
Referring to essential elements of the section, the court observed that “for criminal intimidation to be made out, a genuine threat must exist, beyond mere words or a disagreement.” The absence of such elements, the court ruled, precluded the prosecution of the accused under Section 506.
For the charge under Section 420, IPC, relating to cheating and dishonest inducement, the court referred to the Supreme Court rulings in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors vs. State of Bihar and Anr and Vesa Holdings Private Limited and Another vs. State of Kerala & Ors, underscoring the principle that intent to deceive must be present at the inception of the transaction.
In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma, it was held, that “To hold a person guilty of cheating, it must be shown that he had fraudulent or dishonest intent at the time of making the promise.” Similarly, in Vesa Holdings, the Court maintained that an offense of cheating cannot arise from a mere failure to honour a subsequent commitment unless deceptive intent existed initially. Applying this reasoning, the High Court concluded that the complaint lacked allegations sufficient to infer an initial intent to cheat, thus invalidating the charge under Section 420.
Further, the court referenced the Supreme Court's observation in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors regarding the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., reinforcing that the High Court may quash proceedings if they appear to be an abuse of the judicial process or if allowing them to continue would defeat the interests of justice.
In conclusion, the High Court quashed the complaint and subsequent proceedings, including orders of the trial court, holding that the requirements for invoking the alleged IPC sections were not met. The court reiterated that legal proceedings should be founded upon clear and substantiated allegations, emphasizing that justice supersedes the mere application of statutory provisions.
Case Title: Muhammad Shafi Wani VS Muhammad Sultan Bhat
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 300
