Dhirendra And Ors [Applicant] Vs. State of U.P. and Another [Opposite Party]
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 18245 of 2018
(Hon’ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
Facts: The present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred challenging the summoning order dated 7.12.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhognipur, District – Kanpur Dehat, in Complaint Case No 877 of 2016 (Baburam Vs Dhirendra and others) under section 379, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station – Bhognipur, District – Kanpur Dehat (U.P.).
Issue: Whether use of abusive language or being discourteous to the opponent or rude would by itself amount to any intention insult within the meaning of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code?
Arguments on behalf of counsel for applicant:
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the summoning order has been passed on the basis of a complaint filed by the opposite party no.2. As per the complaint case, it is alleged that the goat of the complainant which was tied up near the house was taken away in the absence of the complainant. As per the complaint, Kallu, Ram Singh and other persons have informed that the applicants have taken away the goat of the complainant. Subsequently, when the complainant went to the house of the applicant, the goat was found and thereafter, they have started abusing and have threatened. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case no offence under Section 379 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants as there is no recovery of the goat. Further, the ingredients of dishonestly removing from the possession is not found from the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that no offence under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants.
Arguments on behalf of counsel for opposite party:
Learned AGA has opposed the application preferred by the applicants. It is submitted by learned AGA that the offence under Sections 379, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code is made out against applicants. It is further submitted that present application preferred by applicants is devoid of merit and as such is liable to be dismissed.
Held: The court partly allowed the present applicant and held that, “The complainant in his complaint has not stated the nature of abusive language used by the applicants. The allegations in the complaint in this respect are wholly vague in nature. It has not been stated in the complaint that the abusive language used by the applicants was of such nature as would have in ordinary course of events let person insulted to the break the peace or commit an offence under the law. Mere use of abusive language or being discourteous to the opponent or rude would not by itself amount to any intention insult within the meaning of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. It has to be shown that the nature of abusive language or insult is such as is likely to insult a person or to commit breach of peace or commit an offence. In the facts and circumstances of the case where the complainant has not disclosed the nature of abusive language used by applicants & general and vague allegations with regard to the language has been made in the complaint without specification then it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The court concerned has incorrectly summoned the accused – applicants under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code.”
