JUDGMENT

C. Shivappa, J. - The petitioner in this petition is seeking for quashing of the proceedings in P.R.C. No. 51 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram.

2. The facts in brief are that the complaint in P.R.C. No. 51 of 1995 was

filed by the respondent herein based on a speech delivered by the petitioner at Bharathi Thidal, Tambaram on 18-31995, alleging that the petitioner herein committed the offence under Sections 307, 504 and 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code. The objectionable part of the speech on which the respondent has based the complaint is as follows:

(Transcript of the speech made in Tamil and the translation reads thus):

"Tamil Nadu has become a State without self respect. In no other State such circumstances is in existence. Some here felt sorry that there is no security for political leaders in Tamil Nadu. At number of places in Tamil Nadu violence is at high peak. Number of attempts were made on my life by throwing acid bulbs. Violence cannot be the answer for violence." Even if nothing can be done in Tamil Nadu when Miss Jayalalitha comes to Delhi, there she can be held and nicely beaten up. Tamil Nadu House where Miss Jayalalitha stays is only 25 yards away from my house. I am living in Safdarjung Road, New Delhi. If that a rocket from my house top it will go and fall in the bed room of Jayalalitha's house. But that is not democracy. I think a change should be brought about only by democratic means."

3. The petitioner herein contended that the entire complaint and the other materials taken in its totality do not disclose any offence and the complaint is frivolous and fictitious in nature. It is also averred that there is no specific averment in the complaint or in the sworn statement as to what was the criminal intimidation and to whom it was intended and whether alarm was caused etc., to attract Section 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code. There is also no allegation that the petitioner intentionally insulted with an intent to provoke breach of peace and the actual words used or supposed to have been used by the petitioner which the complainant understood to be words of insult is not mentioned. In such a situation, it is not possible for the Court to decide whether there is any intentional insult. According to him in the absence of an attempt to murder, namely, mens rea and actus reus and in the absence of the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code, even if allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not primafacie constitute an offence and the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance with a view to spite him due to his effectiveness in impressing upon the public mind the corrupt nature of the then Government.

4. The learned Magistrate keeping in view the averments in the complaint and the statements in the depositions, declined to take cognizance of the complaint and dismissed holding that there is no prima facie case to proceed with the complaint.

5. The complainant preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No. 23 of 1995 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu M.G.R. District against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, made in C.C. No; 460 of 1995 on 19-6-1995. In the revision, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram and directed to take the complaint on his /file, issue process and dispose of the matter according to law the point far consideration in this petition is whether the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint and sworn statements establish prima facie a triable case for offences under Sections 307, 504 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal code.

6. The power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. should be used very sparingly. The test is, taking the allegations in the complaint and the statements given in Court without adding or substracting any thing, if no offence is made out, the