JUDGMENT :

PURNENDU SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan , learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 29.11.2017 passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 795(C) of 2016 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, Patna whereby cognizance of offence has been taken under Sections 323, 341, 504, 354A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that Complaint Case No.795(C) of 2016 was filed making petitioner as accused under Sections 323, 341, 504, 354A of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance of the offence was taken on 29.11.2017. The petitioner was produced before the Court after having summon served on 24.10.2017 and in most mechanical manner without following the procedure prescribed under section 244 of the Cr.P.C. The Magistrate proceeded to continue with the trial for the offence under the above Sections. Learned counsel submitted that the Section 244 of the Cr.P.C. prescribes for fixing date and giving opportunity to the petitioner before framing of the charge and automatically framing charge is deprecated. Learned counsel submitted that though there is procedural lapses but the same has affected the vital right of the petitioner as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. On these grounds, the learned counsel seeks interference with the order dated 29.11.2017.

4. Referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Vikram Johar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. in Cr. Appeal No. 759 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4820 of 2017), he submitted that in absence of any ingredient under Section 504 of Indian Penal Code, further proceeding will be only vexatious in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and therefore seeks quashing of the cognizance order dated 29.11.2017 passed in connection with Complaint Case No.795(C) of 2016 and the entire proceeding pending against the petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity and he has not filed any application as already cognizance of offence has been taken under Sections 323, 341, 504, 354A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. Having ignored his rights, the order dated 29.11.2017 cannot be said to be having not followed the required procedure and opportunity has not been given to the petitioner. On these grounds, learned APP submitted that the present application is fit to be dismissed without interfering with the order.

6. Heard the parties.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, it appears that cognizance has been taken under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. In this regard, I find it apt to refer the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Vikram Johar (supra), particularly, on para 23 and 26 which are inter-alia reproduced herein-after:

“23. In paragraph No.13 of the judgment, this Court has noticed the ingredients of Section 504, which are to the following effect:-

"13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz. (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it a to to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an ac