IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Arpita Pal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sushil Chandra Pal. – Respondents
CRR 1850 of 2020
Decided on : 23-02-2024
Intentional Insult - Criminal Intimidation - 504, 506, 34 of IPC - Section 504, Section 506, Section 34 of IPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, daughter-in-law of the opposite party, sought to quash proceedings in a complaint case under Sections 504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alleging false implication and no involvement in the offenses. The allegations included intentional insult and criminal intimidation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found prima facie evidence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of IPC against the petitioners Arpita Pal and Gopa Das, but not under Section 504. The court quashed the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 207 of 2017 in respect of some petitioners and ordered trial for the offense under Sections 506/34 of IPC for Arpita Pal and Gopa Das.
Issues: The issues involved intentional insult and criminal intimidation under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, and the false implication of the petitioners in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the essential ingredients of the offenses under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC as per legal provisions and interpretations from the case of Mohammad Wajid & Anr. vs State of U.P. & Ors. The court emphasized the need for intentional insult and the intention to cause alarm for the offenses.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 207 of 2017 for some petitioners and ordered trial for the offense under Sections 506/34 of IPC for Arpita Pal and Gopa Das.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of proceedings in Complaint Case No. 207 of 2017 dated under Sections 504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Learned 4th Judicial Magistrate at Barasat.
FACTS:-
2. The petitioner No. 1 is the daughter in law of the opposite party. The other petitioners are her parents and other family members.
3. The petitioner no. 1 states that she was compelled to live in her parental house “due to several cruel treatments by the persons of her matrimonial house”. A case being Rishra Police Station case no. 34 of 2016 under Sections 498A/406/307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 filed by the petitioner no. 1 is pending before Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Shreerampore.
4. The allegations against the petitioners in short are that the petitioner no. 1 use to call the son of complainant and threaten him with dire consequences and also use filthy language.
5. The petitioners state that the complainant and his son instituted two different cases on similar cause of action, one is Special No. 222 of 2018 corresponding to Complaint Case No. 460 of 2017 dated under Sections 500/501/502/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Special Judge (MP & MLA Court) at Barasat and another before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat under Sections 504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 being Complaint case no. 207 of 2017 dated 09.02.2017. It is submitted that both these cases are the counter blast of Rishra Police Station Case No. 34 of 2016 under Sections 498A/406/307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
6. It is stated that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no involvement of the petitioners in the commission of offences as alleged in the instant case.
7. From the petition of Complaint, it appears that:-
ii) The petitioner no.1 allegedly kept going to her parent’s house, refusing to return, but the complainant’s son kept bringing her back on assurances.
iii) The petitioner no. 1 allegedly used to abuse the son of the Complainant in filthy language and thereafter filed a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
iv) The petitioner no. 1 allegedly left her matrimonial home on 04.04.2015 by taking all her articles and valuables.
v) On 07.06.2015 the petitioner no. 1 & 3 allegedly attacked the Complainant’s house and abused them in filthy language in public (before the local people) and also threatened to throw the complainant out of his house by using the laws in favour of the women.
vi) The petitioner no. 1 has filed a case under the PWDV Act, against the Complainant and his son.
vii) The petitioner no. 1 and 3 then started staying in the Complainant’s house and continued to abuse every person in the house and also continued to threaten.
viii) On 21.09.2015, the petitioner no. 1 wrote to the Complainant’s previous office claiming the Complainants pension as maintenance for which the Complainant has suffered a loss of face and self respect.
ix) The petitioner No.1 filed a case under Sections 498A/406/307 of the Indian Penal Code, one year after leaving her matrimonial home and also continued to threaten the Complainant’s son over phone and spreading lies about him.
x) Then allegedly on several days over phone (Social media/SMS/e-mail) the petitioner no.1 threatened and abused the Complainant’s son in filthy language and making false vulgar allegations.
xi) The petitioner no.1 is a divorcee and suppressing the same has married the Complainant’s son.
8. The proceedings in the present case has been initiated for offence punishable under Sections 504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. Section 504 of I.P.C., lays down:-
The main legal point established is the requirement of intentional insult and the intention to cause alarm for the offenses under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC.
The absence of specific abusive language in a complaint under Section 504 IPC negates the claim of intentional insult necessary for criminal intimidation.
Abuse of process and lack of elements for charges under IPC Sections 504 and 506 established by the court.
The judgment establishes that mere abusive language does not suffice to constitute an intentional insult under Section 504 IPC, and that the essential elements of criminal intimidation must be clearl....
Vague or farfetched allegations should be scrutinized, and if found frivolous, they should be quashed. Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC should not be loosely invoked without proper justification.
The essential ingredients of an offense under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code must be met for the charge to be sustained.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.