Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.45514 of 2009 ===================================================== 1. Nandjee Singh, son of Late Ram Akwal Singh, resident of A/19, Anandpuri, P.S. Sri Krishnapuri, District-Patna. 2. Mithalesh Singh, son of Sri Nandjee Singh, resident of A/19, Anandpuri, P.S. Srikrishnapuri, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sri Rajendra Prasad Mishra, son of Late Ramrup Mishra, resident of A/18, Anandpuri, P.S. Srikrishnapuri, District-Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties. ===================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Mishra (in person). ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV ORDER ---------------- 9 24-02-2012 The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 18.4.2009 passed in Complaint Case No.533(C) of 2008 by the court of Sri Kanhaiya Ram, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, summoning the accused-petitioners, on inquiry under [STATUTE] . 2. In brief, the case is that the complainant-opposite party no.2, Sri Rajendra Prasad Mishra, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No.533(C) of 2008 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, alleging the incidents and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45514 of 2009 (9) dt.24-02-2012 2 / 5 2 misdeeds caused at the hands of the petitioners and also detailing the list of the cases/proceedings either pending or disposed of. 3. After filing of the complaint petition by the complainant-opposite party no.2, Sri Rajendra Prasad Mishra, on inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court of Sri Kanhaiya Ram, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, summoned the accused-petitioners finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] through the impugned order dated 18.4.2009. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made submission that the petitioner no.1, Nandjee Singh, is a retired person aged about 86 years and the petitioner no.2, Mithalesh Singh, is working in Muscat, Oman, with OTE Group of Companies since 2003. The complainant-opposite party no.2, is in the habit of harassing the petitioners by filing the cases, one after another, which would appear from the complaint petition itself, and he has filed this complaint case maliciously with oblique motive. It has also been submitted that from perusal of the complaint petition and the Solemn affirmation of the complainant- opposite party no.2, it would appear that the ingredients required for constituting the offence under [STATUTE] are lacking and the learned Magistrate illegally summoned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45514 of 2009 (9) dt.24-02-2012 3 / 5 3 the petitioners finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] . 5. On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the complainant-opposite party no.2 has made allegation detailing the several incidents and misdeeds caused at the hands of the petitioners detailing about the pendency of the cases/proceedings and also the orders of some proceedings. The complainant- opposite party no.2 in his solemn affirmation has stated that the complaint case has been filed against the accused-petitioners regarding the occurrence of 1977 to 9.2.2008, further saying that on 9.2.2008, the petitioners pointing out their fingers got identified him and his other family members to the some persons from their roofs, who used to throw the garbage and water at his roof. At the time of identifying by the petitioners, he made protest, on which they abused him. 6. It appears from the complaint petition that no specific averment has been made regarding the insult by abuse on 9.2.2008 to the complainant-opposite party no.2 on the hand of the accused- petitioners. The complainant-opposite party no.2 only in his solemn affirmation has stated that on 9.2.2008 when he was identified by the accused-petitioners by pointing the finger to some others he made protest on which he was abused by them but Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45514 of 2009 (9) dt.24-02-2012 4 / 5 4 he has not detailed the words which were used in abuse by the accused-petitioners. 7. [STATUTE] relates to punishment for intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace which is read as under: “504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.- Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” On reading of the provision of [STATUTE] , it is apparent that the provision would be attracted only when, firstly, the accused insults the complainant either by words or conduct; secondly, the insult must be of such a nature that it should be a provocation to the complainant; and thirdly, that the accused intended or knew that the provocation was likely to cause the complainant to either break public peace or commit any other offence. As such, insult should be offered either by words or conduct intentionally for provocation to breach the public peace or commit any other offence. 8. In absence of the words uttered in abusing by the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45514 of 2009 (9) dt.24-02-2012 5 / 5 5 accused-petitioners in the solemn affirmation and complaint petition of the complainant-opposite party no.2 whether the abuse was intentional insult to provoke th

Applicable IPC Section: 504

Statute Text:
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.