The ingredients of the offences of house trespass, defamation, and intentional insult under Sections 448, 500, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, respectively, and the interpretation of these provisions in the context of the facts of the case.

T. R. Handa, J.—By this petition moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek the quashing of the criminal proceedings now pending against them in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kulu under Sections 448, 500 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner No. 1 is the Secretary of the Marketing Committee, Kulu, petitioner No. 2 is the Fee Collector, Marketing Committee, Kulu and petitioner No. 3 is a daily paid employee in the same Market Committee.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are short and simple. On . 24-7-1979 a petition of complaint was filed by Shri Mohan Lal respondent against the present petitioners under Sections 448, J500, 501 and 504,1. P. C. in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kulu. The allegations in the complaint were that on 21-7-1979 at about 6 P. M the petitioners entered the shop of the respondent-complainant without his permission and on so entering they forcibly took into possession certain books of account concerning the shop of the respondent-complainant. When asked to disclose their identity, the petitioners abused the respondent and further threatened him that they would call the S. H. O. Kulu and get him arrested. Some other persons of the locality gathered at the shop of the respondent and in their presence also the petitioners abused him and threatened to get him arrested by the police.

3. After recording the preliminary evidence of the respondent-complainant the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 7-8-1979 summoned all the three petitioners under Sections 448,504 and 500,1. P. C. The petitioners entered appearance in response to the summons issued against them and moved an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 30-4-1980 praying that the provisions of Section 197, Cr. P. C. were attracted in their case and since no sanction of the State Government had been obtained, the proceedings taken against them deserved to be quashed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, without according any order on that application proceeded to frame charges against the petitioners under Sections 448, 500 and 504, I. P. C. The charges as framed may be reproduced : "Firstly that you on or about 21-7-1979 at about 6 p.m. at Akhara Bazar Kulu committed house trespass by entering into the shop of Shri Mohan Lal used for the custody of property with intent to abuse and defame him and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 448, I. P. C. and within the cognizance of this Court; Secondly that on the aforesaid day, time and place you defamed Mohan Lai by abusing and threatening him that you will get him arrested from the police by calling the S. H. O. intending thereby to harm the reputation of said Mohan Lai and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 500, I. P. C. and within the cognizance of this Court; Thirdly, that you on or about the same day, time and place intentionally insulted and thereby gave provocation to said Mohan Lai intending that such provocation would cause the said Mohan Lai to break the public peace and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 504,1. P. C. and within the cognizance of this Court.”

4. The petitioners contended that they had gone to inspect the shop of the respondent in the discharge of their official duties and they were authorised under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Marketing Act to check and search the premises of the respondent. As a result of such inspection they actually filed a challan against the respondent under Section 32(1") of the Himachal Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1969(9 of 1970). The complaint filed by the respondent was a counter blast to such challan filed against him at the instance of the petitioners. Even otherwise the allegations in the complaint disclose no offence for which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could take cogni