1. Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR under Sections 504, 506, 507 IPC for sending derogatory email. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2527
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
TILAK RAJ SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS – Respondent
CRMMO/502/2019
Petitioner Advocates:Shweta Joolka Rakesh Kumar Sharma Ishaan Kashyap ,Respondent Advocate: AG AG Tara Singh Chauhan Tara Singh Chauhan Ram Murti Bisht Ravinder Thakur
Use of filthy or derogatory language in electronic communication does not constitute offences under Sections 504 or 506 of the IPC unless there is evidence of intent to provoke a breach of public peace or a specific threat of injury intended to cause alarm.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 and Section 155 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 504, 506, and 507 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - High Court may exercise inherent powers to quash proceedings if allowing them to continue would be an abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, especially where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence. (Paras 12-18)
(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 155(4) - Investigation of non-cognizable cases - Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable. (Paras 20-22)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 504 - Intentional insult - Mere act of using filthy language or abusing the complainant is not sufficient for conviction; the insult must be of such a nature as to provoke the person insulted to break public peace or engage in criminal conduct. (Paras 23-25)
(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 506 - Criminal intimidation - Requires an act of threatening another person with injury to their person, reputation, or property with the intent to cause alarm. Expressing anguish through derogatory language without a specific threat of injury does not constitute criminal intimidation. (Paras 25-27) (E) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 507 - Criminal intimidation by anonymous communication - This provision cannot be invoked if the essential ingredients of criminal intimidation under Section 506 are not satisfied. (Para 28)
Facts of the case:
An FIR was registered following a complaint from a senior scientist who received a derogatory and abusive email. Investigation traced the IP address to a mobile connection registered in the name of the petitioner. After the initial charge under the Information Technology Act was struck down by the Supreme Court, a charge sheet was presented under Sections 504, 506, and 507 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that while the email contained highly derogatory and filthy language, there was nothing to suggest that the petitioner intended to provoke a breach of public peace or extended a threat of injury to cause alarm. Consequently, the necessary ingredients for offences under Sections 504, 506, and 507 of the Indian Penal Code were not met.
Issues: 1. Whether the investigation of non-cognizable offences was legal without a Magistrate's order. 2. Whether the use of derogatory language in an email satisfies the prima facie requirements to initiate prosecution under Sections 504, 506, and 507 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 155(4) Cr.PC, the presence of one cognizable offence makes the entire case cognizable. However, for Section 504 IPC, the insult must be likely to cause a breach of public peace, and for Section 506 IPC, there must be a threat of injury to cause alarm; mere verbal abuse, even if filthy, does not satisfy these legal thresholds.
Result: Petition allowed. Charge-sheet/challan and consequent proceedings are quashed and set aside; petitioner is discharged.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
- statutory interpretation
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued no prima facie case and non-cognizable offences without Magistrate's order. State argued cognizable offence and sufficient evidence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Petition allowed. Charge-sheet and consequent proceedings quashed. Petitioner discharged. (Para 33 )
4. What is the test for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC?
Proceedings may be quashed if allegations, even if accepted, do not constitute an offence; or if proceedings are malicious and an abuse of process. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
5. Can police investigate a case involving both cognizable and non-cognizable offences without Magistrate's order?
Yes, under Section 155(4) CrPC, if at least one offence is cognizable, the case is deemed cognizable and can be investigated without Magistrate's order. (Para 20 , 21 )
6. What are the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 504 IPC?
The offence requires intentional insult that gives provocation to the person insulted, with the intent or knowledge that it will cause breach of public peace or commission of an offence. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 )
7. What constitutes the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC?
There must be a threat to cause injury to person, reputation, or property, with the intent to cause alarm or compel the person to do or omit an act they are not legally bound to do. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 )
8. When is Section 507 IPC (criminal intimidation by anonymous communication) applicable?
It applies only when the communication is anonymous or the perpetrator conceals their name/abode. It cannot apply if the origin is traced to a known IP address, and the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 is not made out. (Para 28 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No.502 of 2019
Reserved on:30.04.2026
Date of Decision: 14.05.2026
_______________________________________________________
Dr. Tilak Raj Sharma …….Petitioner
Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram: o
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Yes.
For the petitioner:
Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.D. Nanda, Ms. Shweta Joolka, Mr.
Gaurav Chaudhary and Mr. Ruchirangad Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents:
Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State.
Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
_______________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge
(oral):
1. By way of the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the charge-sheet/challan arising out of FIR No. 50 dated 10.03.2015, registered under Sections 504, 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication competent Court of law qua the petitioner. P
2. For having bird’s eye view, facts relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be instituted at the behest of respondent No.4 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘complainant’), who at the relevant time was working as Senior Scientist in the Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, CSKHPKV, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that he has received a derogatory email message from the email address hpkvalumni@rediffmail.com at 7:11 p.m. on 10.02.2019 and the contCents of email are as under:-
“We will fuck your mom and sis bete. We are closely watching you
and guaging your notorious moves. What you have uttered about
ABVP is known to everyone. Whatsoever rubbish is happening in
this University is all your brainchild and you are our next target after
this bastard, who has already lost his mental balance. We have
found that you are even a bigger bastard than this man whom we
are fucking everyday and you are licking his shit all day at his
residence madarchod. Tu to gaya bhosadi ke. Always lick the shit of
person in power, bhainchod".
The contents of the above e-mail are very derogatory, demeaning
disgraceful and abusive to me and my family. It is therefore humbly
prayed that the person and the IP address from where this e-mail
message originated be traced and the faulty be proceeded against
as per the provisions of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.
3. Complainant alleged that contents of the e-mail are very derogatory, demeaning, disgraceful and abusive to him as well as his family members, as such, person responsible for sending the said e-mail, along with the IP address from where the e-mail origPinated, be traced and proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act (in short, the “IT Act”). On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR came to be lodged against unknown person under Section 66-A oof the IT Act. Police, during investigation, found that email originated from IP 117.251.72.229. During investigation, it was also found that aforesaid IP belonged to BSNL and was accessed through a GSM connection registered with BSNL, North Zoneo, Chandigarh. Nodal Officer, BSNL, HP, Shimla, who was reCquested vide letter No.2061/5A dated 03.06.2015 to provide the full particulars of the person, to whom the afore IP address was allotted at the time when the email message was sent from the email address detailed hereinabove, who in turn sent icommunication dated 11.06.2015 through email, disclosing therein that IP 117.251.72.229, from wher
