IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22170 of 2007 ASHA KUMARI, WIFE OF SRI RAM NEWAJ RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE –DAHIWAR, POLICE STATION-BUXAR, DISTRICT - BUXAR. -------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RANI DEVI, WIFE OF RAM PAL RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KURTHA, P.S. SHEOSAGAR, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. ------------ OPP.PARTIES ___________ For the petitioner : Mr. Syed Asghar Najmi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : None. ----------- O R D E R The petitioner herein has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 11.1.2007 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Complaint Case no.686 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Section 504 I.P.C. and has issued summons against her. One Rani Devi, the complainant, impleaded as Opp.Party no.2 herein, has filed the aforesaid complaint on 28.6.2005 inter alia alleging commission of offences under Sections 182,420,468, 504 /34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 / 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities ) Act ( hereinafter referred to as the “ SC/ST Act”). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she was appointed as Sahayika on 30.9.2004 at Anganbari Cenre , Kurtha, but - 2 - on 24.6.2005 the petitioner , who was the Child Development Project Officer, Sheosagar, removed her from the post by misusing her official position, demanding money and threatening to appoint another person. It is alleged that on refusal of the complainant to pay the money, the petitioner had removed her and appointed another person. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on 24.6.2005 she as the Child Development Project Officer, Sheosagar had gone to inspect the Anganbari Centre at Kurtha , where the husband and Devar of the complainant had misbehaved with her. They had abused and threatened her, for which she had lodged Sheosagar P.S. Case no.84 of 2005 under Sections 341,323,353, 504/34 I.P.C. against the aforesaid persons, namely, Rampal Ram and Dudh Nath Ram and instant complaint case has been filed by way of an afterthought and as a counter blast four days after the registration of Sheosagar P.S. Case no.84 of 2005 and also in order to protect her husband and Devar. The learned counsel for the petitioner further sought to submit that a Sevika of the School, Urmila Devi had given a written application to the petitioner on 2.6.2005 regarding the indecent and abusive behaviour of the husband of opp.party no.2 and also stated that the complainant had been unauthorisedly absenting herself from duty since 27.5.2005. On receipt of the application, the petitioner had separately written a letter to the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram vide her letter dated 5.7.2005 requesting him to take immediate action against Opp.Party no.2’s husband . The petitioner had also written a - 3 - letter to the Mukhiya of Dumari Gram Panchayat vide letter dated 5.7.2005 stating therein that Rani Devi was absenting herself from duty and that her husband and Devar had misbehaved and abused her while on duty. She also requested the Mukhiya to call a meeting and cancel the appointment of Rani Devi. On the basis of the said letters, it has been submitted, that it was not the petitioner who had not removed Opp.Party no.2, the complainant from her post and that she had only carried out her duty of informing about the dereliction of duty by Rani Devi which she was bound to do in her official capacity. It has also been submitted that from a plain reading of the complaint petition, it would be apparent that no case under Section 504 I.P.C.can be said to have been made out against the petitioner and her prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. The learned counsel further sought to impress that the very fact that cognizance had only been taken under Section 504 I.P.C. goes to show that the story of demanding money etc had been disbelieved by the cognizance taking court. Although, notice was duly served on Opp.Party no.2, she has chosen not to appear and , therefore, submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner remains un-rebutted . Even otherwise, the petitioner by virtue of her post was duty bound to send report to the District Magistrate and Mukhiya regarding the unauthorized absence and dereliction of duty by Rani Devi .From the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would appear that the petitioner had merely informed the District - 4 - Magistrate and Mukhiya and it was the District Magistrate, who had removed Rani Devi. The other submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the instant case has been filed by way of a counter blast to the case filed by her against the husband and Devar of Asha Devi appears to be true since the instant complaint was filed four days after the registration of the Police case and no reason has been assigned for the delay in such filing. Even otherwise, no offence under Section 504 I.P.C. can be said to have been made out against the petitioner. Mere breach of good manners does not constitute an offence under Section 504 I.P.C. . For the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. , it is necessary that the insult delivered to the person insulted with intention that he may there and then be provoked to commit an offence . There being no such provocation an offence under Section 504 I.P.C. can not be said to have been committed. For the reasons stated above, I am of the opinion that the order taking cognizance against the petitioner amounts to an abuse of the process of the court and is required to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance is quashed and the application is allowed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J) Patna High Court, Patna Dated : the 19th November,2008 Nawal Kishore Singh/ A.F.R.