IMPORTANT POINT
The essential ingredients of an offense under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code must be met for the charge to be sustained.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 07.07.2017 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar has issued summon against the petitioner for facing the trial involving the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 107 of 2016.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the Human Resource Manager of Dabur India Limited, Solan, in the state of Himachal Pradesh. The complainant-opposite party no. 2 was an employee under the said company and he was dismissed from his services as he became a habitual absentee. It is alleged that the petitioner over phone told the complainant-opposite party no. 2 to be a Jungali Adiwasi. The learned Magistrate, considering the complaint, statement under solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the inquiry witnesses found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code and took cognizance for the same vide order dated 07.07.2017 in P.C.R. Case No. 107 of 2016 and issued summon.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner that even assuming for the sake of argument that the allegation against the petitioner is true in its entirety, still, the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out as there is no material to suggest that the insult by telling the complainant to be a Jungli Adiwasi is either intentional or it was of such a degree that it could provoke the complainant to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.

5. In support of his contention, Mr. Sinha relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2023) SCC Online SC 668, Para-22 and 23 of which reads as under:

“22. What remains is section 504, IPC. In Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra, this Court had the occasion to hold that:

“13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz. (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. 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 intending 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, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. 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 Section 504 IPC.”

23. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, we have little hesitation in holding that even though the appellant might have abused the complainant but such abuse by itself and without anything more does not warrant subjecting the appellant to face a trial, particularly in the clear absence of the ingredient of intentional insult of such a degree that it could provoke a person to break public peace or commit any other offence.”

(Emphasis supplied)

And also relies upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2019) 14 SCC 207, Para-21 and 24 of which reads as under:

“21. Section 504 IPC came up for consideration before this Court in Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715. In the said case, th