The Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court, presided by Justice Sanjay Dhar, while hearing a Writ Petition filed by the petitioners against a complaint pending in Trial Court, held that for the satisfaction of offence u/S.504 RPC, the nature of the act should be such that it shows intent to disturb public peace.
Table of Contents
Allegations by the complainant (Respondent in this case)
The complainant had filed a complaint against the petitioners in the Trial Court alleging that the petitioners had prepared a false adoption document based on a deed that had already been declared null and void. When the complainant inquired the petitioners about the same, it is alleged that the petitioners threatened her and used filthy language. It is also alleged that when the petitioners tried to catch hold of her, she made a hue and cry. Thereafter, the complaint was made before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, investigation was conducted under Section 202 of the Cr.PC and the Trial Court framed charges u/s 504 and u/s. 506 of the Ranbir Penal Code.
Contention of the petitioners
The petitioners contended that the complaint stands no ground because the offences mentioned u/s 504 and u/s 506 RPC are not satisfied. It was also contended that the complainant presented no reasonable evidence that threats were given or foul language was used.
Observations and Judgement made by the Court
The Court acknowledged that without a dispute it has been settled by judicial precedents that unless it is shown that the allegations and the material available on record do not constitute an offence against the accused, a criminal prosecution cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. The Judicial Magistrate in the complaint, had already observed that ingredients of S. 420 RPC are not satisfied; hence in the present case the Court also observed the same, as it was a settled issue.
As to the issue that a mere allegation that the document is forged and some assertion that a filthy language was used was enough to satisfy the ingredients of S.504 and S.506 of the RPC. The Court, while relying on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2014 (SC), held that for ingredients of S.504 IPC to be satisfied it is to be established that an act of insult should be of such a nature as would give provocation to the person insulted to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.Â
Hence, the Court held that ingredients for the offence of S.504 RPC are not getting satisfied as the statement presented by the complainant and her witnesses merely contain general allegations and they nowhere allege that they were made with an intent to provoke the complainant to commit breach of public peace.
While answering the issue of S.506 RPC, the Court, noticed the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Manik Taneja and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. (2015 SC) and held that the complainant in the complaint and during her enquiry has failed to present any material on record that she was threatened or criminally intimidated. Mere expression of words which do not cause such an alarm to the complainant and which are not enough to provoked her to disturb public peace, would not be sufficient to bring the act within the definition of criminal intimidation.
Hence, the Court quashed the complaint proceedings being carried out by the Trial Court and allowed the petition.
Case Title: Jia Lal v. UT of J&K & Anr (2024 LiveLaw JKL)
