IMPORTANT POINT
Intentional insult and provocation are essential elements for offences under IPC Section 504, and the absence of specific abusive language does not preclude the possibility of an offence.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

This Crl.M.C. has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner/sole accused in CrimeNo.1/2021 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Kottayam, now pending as C.C. No.43/2022 on the files of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, to quash the same.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Scrutinized the available records.

3. Here the prosecution alleges that the accused/petitioner herein committed offences punishable under Sections 298 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short hereinafter) as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.

4. The sum and substance of the allegation is that the accused/petitioner herein published a news item stating that nuns are the concubine of priests and bishops in You Tube and Facebook, whereby the accused with deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of nuns, intentionally insulted and thereby given human provocation, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause harm to all the nuns. Apart from that, it is alleged that thereby the accused indecently represented nuns.

5. While arguing for quashment of the entire proceeding, the learned counsel for the petitioner given much emphasis to the ingredients to attract offence under Section 504 of IPC, after reading the Section and also highlighting the allegations of prosecution. The learned counsel placed decision of the Apex Court in Fiona Shrikhande and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 (14) SCC 44], to contend that in order to attract offence under S.504 IPC, the intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults in tending or knowing it 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. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under S.504 IPC. As such, it is submitted that the ingredients required to attract the offence under Sec. 504 is totally absent in this case and hence the offence will not lie against the Petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed decision of the Apex Court in Mohammed Wajid V. State of Up (AIR 2023 SC 3784), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of S.504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the other element of the accused intending to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits an offence under S.504,IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the complainant. In King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai, 1902 (4) Bom. LR 78,a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:-

“To constitute an offence under S.504. I.P.C. it is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the other party to lose his temper and say or do something violent. Public peace can be broken by angry words as well as deeds.”

(Emphasis supplied)

7. In Mohammed Wajid V. State of Up (AIR 2023 SC 3784) it was also held as follows:-

In the FIR, all that the first informant has stated is that abusive language was used by the accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the FIR. On