CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2850 OF 2004 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) SR. REENA THERUVAN DAUGHTER OF MR. KURIEN THERUVAN, RESIDENT OF NAZARETH CONVENT, KARIMGANJ, P.S. CIVIL LINE, DISTRICT GAYA ….. PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SURESH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE SITARAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SEVA NAGAR NO.1, QUARTER NO.18, CIVIL LINE, DISTRICT GAYA …… OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. K.M. Joseph, Advocate For the State : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P. For opposite party No.2 : Mr. Amit Kr. Anand, Advocate ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash,J. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 11.9.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya in Complaint case No.556 of 2000/ Trial No.162 of 2003 by which he has refused to discharge the petitioner on an application filed u/s. 245 Cr.P.C. for offences u/ss.384 and 504 I.P.C. By an order dated 24.8.2004 notice was issued to the opposite party no.2, but despite notice the opposite party no.2 did not appear before the court and, therefore, on 16.8.2005 the matter was admitted for hearing. Now both the parties are present in Court and advance their respective arguments. The case of the prosecution is that on - 2 - 26.6.2000 when the complainant-opposite party no.2 went to the school where his child was studying and the petitioner was a Principal to understand how his son, who was studying in the school, had been dismissed on 2.5.2000. When the complainant met the petitioner the petitioner allegedly asked for donation of Rs.7000/- as building fund, out of which the complainant agreed to pay Rs.1000/- which she accepted but demanded the rest amount and on refusal threw him out of the school. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner happens to be the Principal of a school which has been established 50 years ago and has a formidable reputation and the entire complaint is in fact frivolous and malicious in nature for the reason that the complainant’s son had been dismissed from school. The further submission is that in fact no offence u/ss.384 and 504 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner in the facts of the case. The opposite party no.2 on the contrary argues that the petitioner is liable for prosecution and this court should not stifle a legitimate prosecution at the threshold. In my view at the stage of charge the court was required to examine whether the offence for which the accused person is to be tried is made out or not. From perusal of the complaint petition the complainant has - 3 - alleged that the petitioner had demanded a further sum of Rs.6000/- for admission of the son of the complainant and had threatened him. When the complainant refused the same and demanded for return of Rs.1000/- the petitioner is alleged to have ordered her Peon to throw him out of the school. In this background one needs to understand the ingredients of Section 384 and 504 I.P.C. for which the petitioner is charged. Section 383 I.P.C. makes any person liable for prosecution u/s.384 if he puts any person in fear of any injury and thereby dishonestly induces the person, so put in fear, to deliver to any person any property would commit extortion. In the present case as narrated above I find total absence of any of the essential ingredients required for trial of the petitioner u/s.384 I.P.C. Where Section 504 I.P.C. is concerned, it reads as follows : “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.” Reading 504 I.P.C., finely one notices that the intentional insult is not enough. There should further also be a knowledge or intention that such provocation - 4 - was likely to coerce the person insulted to break public peace. In the present case there is no allegation that the insult was to the extent that it would drive the complainant to break public peace. In view of such, this application is allowed and the order dated 11.9.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Gaya in Complaint case No.556 of 2000/ Trial No.162 of 2003 is quashed. Patna High Court Dated, 15th July,2010. AFR/Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )