THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2391 of 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused

Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.T.C.No.97 of 2023 on the file of XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar registered for the offences under sections 323 and 504 of

Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard Mr.Siripuram Kaumud, learned counsel for

the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel representing Mr.K.Ravinder Reddy Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that he intends to file counter. No counter was filed even though the counsel took adjournment for filing counter long time back and the matter is listed under the caption ‘for orders’ today. Hence this Court heard Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of respondent No.2.

Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the ingredients of the offences are not made out. As per the complaint, the incident was witnessed by the watchman of the apartment by name Ramana who is a crucial witness, but he has not been examined by the police and the witnesses cited are complainant and her daughter and except them no other eye witnesses were examined. The allegation against the petitioners is that they shouted in un-parliamentary language at the door step of the complainant’s house. It is further submitted that the allegations do not constitute the offence under section 504 of IPC, as there was no intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace caused to accused, so also the charge under section 323 of IPC is not made out, as there is no instance of voluntarily causing hurt to the de facto complainant and if so, to prove the same, no medical officer was examined.

4. He placed reliance on a decision held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.V.Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and another, (2025) 3 Supreme Court Cases 475, wherein in paras 25, 26, 27 and 29 it was held as under-

“25. Needless to say, that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence does not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 IPC. Furthermore, it would be immaterial that the person who has been insulted and provoked did not actually break the peace or commit any offence.

26. Section 504 IPC consists of two parts. Firstly, the actus reus – being the intentional insult which gives rise to the provocation. Secondly, the mens rea i.e. the intention or knowledge on the part of the accused that such intentional provocation is likely to cause the person insulted to break public peace or commit any other offence. The animus nocendi in Section 504 IPC is that the accused should “intentionally insult” the other person with the intention or knowledge that the provocation caused by such insult is likely to result in the commission of breach of public peace or any other offence by the person who has been so insulted. The offence is said to be complete once the accused person makes “intentional insult” with the aforesaid mens rea. Hence, intention or knowledge on the part of the accused person that his actions of making “intentional insult” have the potential to provoke the person insulted is sine qua non for the commission of the offence under Section 504 IPC.

27. The natural corollary of the above discussion is that if the accused does not intend to give provocation, the offence is not made out. An insult without an “intention to insult” is not punishable under Section 504 IPC. Further, “intentional insult” must be of such a degree that it has the potential to provoke a reasonable person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.

29. The test to be applied to determine if the intentional insult made by the accused is sufficient to cause provocation is that of a reasonable person i.e. if the insult is sufficient to provoke any reasonable person to break peace or commit any other offence, only then the accused will be