IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that mere abusive language does not suffice to constitute an intentional insult under Section 504 IPC, and that the essential elements of criminal intimidation must be clearly demonstrated for a charge under Section 506 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Applicant-1, Akanksha Katiyar, is daughter-in-law of Complainant, i.e., Opposite Party-4, whereas Applicants-2, 3 and 4 are close relatives of Applicant-1.

2. It is the case of applicants that Applicant-1 has earlier lodged a FIR dated 30.05.2022 being Case Crime No. 0091 of 2022 at Police Station Shivrajpur, District Kanpur Nagar against Opposite Party-4, against her husband and his close relatives for offence under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, alleging that she got married with son of Opposite Party-4 on 28.11.2019 and thereafter she was suffered cruelty with regard to demand of dowry and later on she was sent back to her parental house. Thereafter on persuasion in the month of November, 2020 she was allowed to live in a room at her matrimonial house but still she suffered cruelty at the hands of her husband, Opposite Party-4 and their relatives. In aforesaid FIR after investigation charge sheet has been filed against said persons.

3. Sri Kumar Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants submitted that Applicant-1 still suffered atrocities and on an occurrence occurred on 14.07.2022, when she was not allowed to enter in her matrimonial house and assaulted, another FIR dated 14.07.2022 being Case Crime No. 0500 of 2022 was lodged under Section 498A, 342, 504, 506 IPC wherein after investigation charge sheet has also been filed against persons of Complainant side.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that in above background, in order to put pressure on applicants, as a counter blast, Opposite Party-4, i.e., mother-in-law of Applicant-1 lodged FIR dated 10.06.2023, i.e., after about 11 months, against applicants being Case Crime No. 0198 of 2023, under Sections 457, 448 and 506 IPC giving a different version of alleged occurrence took place on 14.07.2022, on which Applicant-1 has already lodged FIR.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that investigation was conducted on aforesaid FIR lodged against applicants wherein also charge sheet was filed on 19.08.2023 but only under Section 504, 506 IPC on which Trial Court has took cognizance by means of impugned order dated 27.10.2023. The charge sheet and summoning order is under challenge in present application.

6. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that present criminal proceedings are result of a counter blast. On basis of alleged occurrence took place on 14.07.2022 it was the Applicant-1, who lodged prompt FIR wherein after investigation charge sheet has been filed, whereas Opposite Party-4 has filed a belated FIR and as referred above, major allegations with regard to Sections 457, 448 IPC were not found and charge sheet was filed only under Sections 504, 506 IPC. Learned counsel further referred statements recorded during investigation that ingredients of offence under Sections 504, 506 IPC are not made out.

7. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for State and learned counsel for Complainant submitted that on basis of statements recorded during investigation and medical report, Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet under above referred offences and Trial Court concerned has rightly took cognizance, which does not require any interference. They also referred statements recorded during investigation.

8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

9. Before adverting to rival submissions it would be relevant to refer few paragraph of a recent judgment passed by Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by SHO and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339:-

“9. The law with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited after considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read thus:

“12. The principles relatin