P. P. BHATT, J.:- The present application is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short) to quash and set aside the complaint at Annexure 'A' being Criminal Case No. 1125 of 2003 pending before the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Gandhinagar and summons/process issued therein under Sec. 504 of I.P.C. qua the present petitioner.

2. The aforesaid complaint, being Criminal Case No. 1125 of 2003, was instituted for the offences punishable under Secs. 170, 216(A), 218, 219, 419, 420, 455, 504, 506(2) and 114 read with Sec. 34 of I.P.C. against total five accused persons. The petitioner herein is accused No.4, against whom summons/process under Sec. 504 of I.P.C. has been issued.

3. Learned Advocate Shri Hardik A. Dave for the petitioner has pointed out facts stated in Para 4 of the petition and submitted that the petitioner is accused No.4 in the complaint filed by Girdharibhai Khataumal Chandak respondent No. 2 herein. The allegations made in the complaint dated 28-1-2003 against the present petitioner are with regard to use of abusive language after having called him (complainant) in the Police Station. On the basis of this complaint, the learned J.M.F.C. has passed an order for issuance of process under Sec. 504 of I.P.C. against the petitioner-accused No.4. It is submitted that the averments made in Para 4 of the complaint do not constitute an offence under Sec. 504 of I.P.C. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred to Sec. 504 of I.P.C. and submitted that from the allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint, none of the ingredients are emerged so as to attract the requirement of Sec. 504 of I.P.C. However, the learned J.M.F.C., Gandhinagar has issued process against the present petitioner-accused No.4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner made following submissions :

3.1. That looking into the allegations against the petitioner and taking the same to be true, it is stated that the petitioner has used abusive language against the complainant-respondent No.2 hereinafter calling the respondent No. 2 to Pethapur Police Station. It is respectfully submitted that in the instant case cognizance of the offence against the present petitioner would require previous sanction of the State Government under Sec. 197 of the Code.

3.2. That the J.M.F.C. has wrongly placed reliance on the decision of the Mumbai High Court reported in 1991 Cri.LJ 1481 and has wrongly held that sanction would not be required to prosecute the petitioner in the instant case.

3.3. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in a catena of decisions held that sanction as required under Sec. 197 of the Code is mandatory and that the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offences against public servants without the necessary sanction. In this context, it is submitted that it is now well settled that Sec. 197 of the Code culls out an exception to Sec. 190 of the Code and no Court can take cognizance under Sec. 190 of the Code if the offence is alleged against a public servant without sanction as envisaged under Sec. 197 of the Code. Thus, the learned Judge has erred in considering the mandatory requirement of Sec. 197 and failed to consider in its true perspective.

3.4. It is respectfully submitted that the ingredients of Sec. 504 of I.P.C. are intentional insult and provocation intending and knowing that such provocation would cause a person to break public peace or to commit any other offence, and therefore, even otherwise no offence much less an offence under Sec. 504 of I.P.C. can be said to be made out against the present petitioner.

3.5. That in the instant case, even if all the averments as stated in the complaint are taken to be completely true, then also it cannot be said that the petitioner has intentionally insulted and given provocation to the present complainant-respondent No.2 as would cause him to break public peace or to commit any other offence. It is respectfully submitted that the mens rea in the