Accusations under Section 504 IPC require clear evidence of intentional provocation, which was absent in this case.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 04-12-2025 Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners have preferred the application under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the order of cognizance dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gaya in Civil Lines P.S. Case No.933 of 2022, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on

10.12.2022, Sahid Khan (petitioner no.1) and his brother namely Sabir Khan, both sons of Late Sahjahan Khan, along with Firdaus Parveen (petitioner no.2), wife of the said Sahid Khan (Petitioner no.1), and Mazia Khatoon, wife of the said Sabir Khan, forcibly took away ornaments and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. When the informant’s younger son attempted to restrain the aforesaid persons from removing the ornaments and cash from the almirah, they allegedly assaulted him, as well as, the wife and daughter of the informant. It is further alleged that the accused persons named in the F.I.R. have been attempting to dispossess the younger son from the residence and shop and are even seeking to dispossess the informant from her home. The informant asserts that she, her younger son, and her daughters, apprehend danger to their lives at the hands of the accused persons. Based on the written report of the informant, an FIR was registered on 11.12.2022 at 9:00 a.m. as Civil Lines P.S.

Case No. 933 of 2022.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that as per the basic ingredient of Section 504 IPC, the petitioners can’t be said to have intentionally given provocation, as such, the offence is not made out against the petitioners for the allegation as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are ready to file written apology to her mother (O.P. No.2) and other family members who have got offended by the alleged illegal action of the petitioners, to buy peace and maintain harmony in the family. Learned counsel further submitted that the O.P. No.2 is a widow of late Md. Sahjahan Khan, who has died leaving behind him 5 sons and 5 daughters along with grandchildren. The petitioner no.1 is the eldest among all the brothers. On the alleged date of occurrence according to the petitioners, the parties were negotiating to partition the property including the iron scrap shop. Learned counsel submitted that in support of the same, information is contained in para-7 of the quashing application. While they were negotiating, all the family members including the petitioners engaged in hot talk leading to some misbehavior on the part of the petitioner no.1 with his mother (O.P. No.2 ).

5. I find to analyze, as to whether, the Magistrate on the basis of the material and evidences before him has given consideration to the same or not? The intentional insult is one of the ingredients to attract Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code . The ingredients of Section 504 of IPC were explained by the Apex Court in case of Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. , reported in (2023) 20 SCC 219 as under:-

“29. Section 504 IPC contemplates intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an intentional insult provoking the person insult