Back
2024 Supreme(Pat) 1165
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
Nagendra Prasad Keshri, Son of Late Yamuna Prasad Keshri@ Jamuna Prasad Keshri - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No.38279 of 2023
Decided On : 17-12-2024
For the Petitioners:Mrs. Archana Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP
The court ruled that mere verbal abuse does not constitute an intentional insult under Section 504, and a prima facie case for criminal intimidation under Section 506 was not established.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 504, 506, and 34 - Quashing of cognizance order - The petitioner challenged the cognizance order for lack of prima facie evidence against him for offences of intentional insult and criminal intimidation. (Paras 11, 26, 32, and 34)
(B) Legal principles - To establish an offence under Section 504, the insult must provoke a breach of peace; mere verbal abuse is insufficient. For Section 506, there must be an intentional insult likely to cause provocation. (Paras 11, 13, and 29)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged that the petitioner and others were involved in wrongful acts including drinking, keeping, and selling wine on the apartment premises, and misappropriating charges from flat owners. (Paras 3, 5, and 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found no prima facie case against the petitioner as the criminal insults and intimidation were not established, and the dispute stemmed from service inadequacies. (Paras 31, 32, and 34)
Issues: The court addressed whether the ingredients for offences under Sections 504 and 506 were satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the alleged actions did not meet the threshold for criminal offenses of insult or intimidation, thereby quashing the order of cognizance. (Paras 27, 30, and 34)
Result: Order of cognizance quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual overview of the case and context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. clarification of legal provisions regarding insult and its intent. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. assessment of prima facie evidence concerning alleged insults. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 4. conclusion of the court and outcome of the proceedings. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
(BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.)
1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by the accused / petitioner for quashing the order of cognizance, dated 23rd of July, 2021, in Danapur P. S. Case No. 687 of 2020, arising out of Complaint Case No. 902 of 2020, under Section 504 /506/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .
2. For proper adjudication of the case as well as better understanding of the factual matrix, the following list of dates, in my view, is necessary to be incorporated at the outset: -
(i) 14.10.2020-16.10.2020 – The complainant /Opposite Party No. 2 filed a case against the petitioner for drinking, keeping and selling wine in a multi-storied apartment under the name and style of Durga Mapple Apartment.
(ii) 16.10.2020 – The accused / petitioner grilled the complainant and threatened him to kill.
(iii) 17.10.2020 – The accused directed the Sweeper of the said apartment to not remove the dustbins in front of the flat of the complainant.
(iv) 19.10.2020 – Generator line of the complainant was disconnected.
(v) 27.10.2020 – The petitioner threatened the complainant to withdraw the cases.
(vi) 25.11.2020 – The petitioner filed Complaint Case No. 902 of 2020 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur.
(vii) 08.12.2020 – The aforesaid complainant having been sent to the Danapur Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., Danapur P. S. Case No. 687 of 2020 was registered against the petitioner.
(viii) 23.07.2021 – The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur took cognizance of offence under Sections 504 , 506 and 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE on police report.
3. It is the case of the Opposite Party No. 2/complainant that he is a bona fide owner of Flat Nos. 703 and 704 in Durga Mapple Apartment at Danapur and the petitioner is one of the land owners. It is alleged that on 13th of November, 2019, the land owners and other flat owners authorized the complainant, who is an Advocate by profession, for filing a case against the builder which is pending as Danapur P. S. Case No. 913 of 2019.
4. Subsequently, the complainant filed two complaints being 429 (C) of 2020 and 435 (C) of 2020 against the builders and land owners, namely, Nagendra Prasad Keshri (the petitioner herein) and Niraj Prasad Keshri.
5. It is alleged that the complainant filed a complaint at Danapur Police Station for the incident which took place on 14th of October, 2020 to 16th of October, 2020, when he found that the petitioner and others being the President and Secretary of illegally formed society of the apartments, were drinking, hoarding and selling wine inside the premises of Durga Mapple Apartment in collusion with the builder.
6. It is further alleged that the builder has collected Rs. 1,75,000/- from all 91 flats owners, amounting to Rs. 1,59,25,000/- as miscellaneous charges for common area.
7. It is further alleged that a fake society was formed for collecting Rangdari in the name of maintenance of apartment and the petitioner described himself as the President, Niraj Keshri as Secretary and Dhiraj Kumar as Cashier of the society of the said apartment. They also manufactured forged letter heads and seal of the society of the said apartment.
8. The complainant, further alleged that on 16th of October, 2020 at about 11.05 P.M., when the police came to inquire into the incident at Durga Mapple Apartment, the petitioner and other accused persons barged in a group in drunken state and grilled the complainant and abused him. On 17th of October, 2020, the accused persons ordered the Sweeper of the said apartment to not lift the garbage of the complainant from in front of his flat and o
