The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of intentional insult to provoke a person to break the public peace or commit any other offence under section 504 I.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Surendra Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This petition under Article 227 has been filed challenging the order dated 24. 09.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 8564 of 2018 (Dashrath Kumar Dixit Vs. Sangeeta J.K) summoning the accused under section 504 I.P.C. and further to set aside order dated 31.05.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 280 of 2021 by which the summoning order was affirmed. A further relief of quashing the entire proceedings of the complaint case has also been sought by means of this petition.

3. The relevant facts are as below.

Dashrath Kumar Dixit (the respondent herein) filed a complaint case against Sangeeta J.K., Executive Director, Kiran Society and ten others under section 500 I.P.C. with the allegations in brief as below:-

That the complainant is an Advocate and has been working for the welfare of handicapped weaker sections and for human rights and is also a R.T.I. activist. Kiran Society has been obtaining funds from foreign countries in the name of welfare of handicapped people, but they have been misusing those funds and exploiting them;

That the complainant therefore complained to the District Magistrate, Varanasi by an application dated 15.05.2017. The District Magistrate, Varanasi instituted an inquiry and Rajesh Kumar Mishra, District Divyangjan Sashaktikaran Adhikari, was deputed as the Inquiry Officer;

That the Inquiry Officer called parties to H.R.T.C. Auditorium on 19.05.2017 in connection with the Inquiry and in the presence of the parties, the complainant was insulted. The production of evidence during the inquiry was recorded by opposite party no.11 - Divyangjan Sashaktikaran Adhikari that is Rajesh Kumar Mishra. The video can be obtained officially;

That during the inquiry, on 19.05.2017, in the presence of all the persons in the Auditorium, the O.P. No. 1, Sangeeta J.K. addressed the complainant in following words "this person is mad". The complainant, who is an Advocate and has been practising for last many years, objected and asked the O.P. No. 11 to include this fact in the inquiry report, but he paid no heed;

That one Raju Kumar Kanaujiya, was threatened by Sangeeta J.K. in front of all the others;

That the Inquiry conducted by O.P. No.11 is doubtful as he never considered the important aspects of the matter;

That the O.P. Nos. 2 -10, under the patronage of O.P. No.11, and the O.P. No.1-Sangeeta J.K. regularly keep threatening the complainant through letters in the office and outside the office in various ways. They regularly mislead the officers of the department;

And that the complainant was deliberately insulted and was put to mental trauma, therefore, a case be registered against them and the passport and visa of Sangeeta J.K. be seized so that she cannot escape to foreign country.

4. On the basis of above allegations, the court proceeded to record the statements of Dashrath Kumar Dixit under section 200 Cr.P.C. and of Vinod Kumar Goswami, Anil Kumar Gupta and Santosh Kumar Pandey under section 202 Cr.P.C. A number of documents were produced at that stage.

5. The C.J.M. proceeded to hear the complainant and passed summoning order on 24.09.2021. By this summoning order, only O.P. No.1 - Sangeeta J.K,, Executive Director, Kiran Society, was summoned under section 504 I.P.C.

6. The accused Sangeeta J.K. preferred a revision before District Judge, Varanasi, assailing the summoning order. Both the sides were heard, the revisional court affirmed the order of summoning by passing an order on 31. 05.2023.

7. Now, the accused is before this Court assailing both the orders.

8. The submissions of the petitioner are that the O.P. No. 2 filed a false and frivolous case. The incident allegedly happened on 19.05.2017. And the complaint has been filed more than a year therafter i.e. on 24.09.2017. Further that the complainant in his statement under sectio