Mere hurling of abuses, without any allegation that such abuses were given intending or knowingly that such an action would provoke the aggrieved person to break public peace or to commit an offense, does not fall within the definition of the offense under Section 504 IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant Misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 31.1.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Churu taking cognizance against them for the offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC as affirmed in revision by order dated 24.5.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu.

3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2/complainant filed a complaint with the S.P., Churu on 26.11.2006 alleging therein that he and his family members own and possess a plot located at Ward No.15, Mohalla Vyoparian, Churu. The complainant allegedly had erected a temporary tin shed in the plot and a boundary wall was raised by erecting stone slabs. The complainant allegedly carried on the business of selling fodder, wood etc. from the said plot. He further alleged that on 15.11.2006 when he was sitting at his plot under the tin shed, at that time, his uncle Abdul Majid, Bilal and Saleem (the petitioners) came inside the plot with the intention of assaulting him and taking possession of the plot. It is alleged that the accused persons before entering into his plot started abusing him and threatened to kill him. He was assaulted by the three accused petitioners as a result whereof he received injuries on the left ankle and other parts of the body. It was further stated that various persons of the locality collected there on hearing the commotion and intervened and saved him from further assault. The complainant also alleged in his complaint that the accused persons were also accompanied by two policemen on a white motorcycle. One of the policemen namely, Banwari Lal exhorted that they would facilitate the possession of the plot by Majid and others. When the complainant showed the title documents of the plot as well as a stay order passed by the Court, the policemen allegedly stated that the courtââ‚â„¢s order was forged. The sale letter was taken away by the policemen and the complainant was threatened that he should come to the police outpost where he would be given proper treatment. It was further stated that after the policemen went away, the accused launched the assault against the complainant. The said complaint was sent to the concerned police station where an F.I.R. was registered and investigation commenced. The investigating officer upon conclusion of investigation submitted a negative final report with the finding that only a non-cognizable offence under Section 504 IPC was made out from the admitted allegations of the complaint.

4. The complainant submitted a protest petition and examined himself and his witnesses in support of the complaint under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C Thereafter, the learned Magistrate by order dated 31.1.2008 proceeded to summon the petitioners for the offences under Sections 323 and 504, IPC. The petitioners assailed the order passed by the learned Magistrate by filing a revision. The revision filed by the petitioners too has been rejected by order dated 24.5.2010. Hence, the instant Misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the impugned orders and all the subsequent proceedings.

5. Assailing the orders impugned, Mr.N.L. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the allegations of the complainant, as averred in his complaint, and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. are accepted to be true on their face value, then too, no prima facie case disclosing the offences under Sections 504 and 323, IPC is made out against the petitioners. It is submitted that for the purpose of invocation of the offence under Section 504, IPC, the insult which is referred to in the Section should have been given with the intention or knowledge that such insult is likely to provoke the person insulted to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence. It is submitted that on a plain reading of the Section, it becomes apparent that before