It is not the law that a complainant should
verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of
provoking the other person to commit any other offence.
The background facts, circumstances, the occasion, the
manner in which they are used, the person or persons to
whom they are addressed, the time, the conduct of the
person who has indulged in such actions are all relevant
factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint
lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504 IPC.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1231 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 382 of 2013]
Fiona Shrikhande .. Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Another .. Respondents
2. We are, in this case, concerned with an incident which
happened in Flat No. 5, 2nd Floor, Goolestan, East Wing, Cuffe
Parade, Mumbai, which led to the filing of a complaint alleging
offences under Sections 294 and 504 IPC.
3. The Complainant (2nd respondent herein) is the sister-in-law
of the accused, being the wife of the complainant’s brother.
Complainant and her brother are the sole surviving heirs of their
parents who are no more. Facts indicate that the father had the
tenancy rights over the flat where the incident is alleged to have
taken place.
4. Complaint Case No. 4701623/SS/11 was filed before the
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court at Esplanade
Mumbai alleging offences punishable under Sections 298 and 504
IPC. Complainant stated that she moved into the above
mentioned flat on 23.04.2011 along with her husband, her
servants and necessary household belongings. Having come to
know of the same, her brother along with accused came to India
from USA and occupied one out of the four bedrooms in the flat
and then indulged in several unlawful acts with a view to push the
complainant out of the flat. On 8.5.2011, the accused
accompanied by her daughter (born to her from her first
marriage) came to the flat at about 4.00 p.m. and then left for
filing a complaint before the Cuffe Parade Police Station against
the complainant stating that she had broken the locks of their
rooms in the flat. After lodging the complaint, she came back to
the flat and rushed into the room where the idols are kept and
shouted that she would not permit anyone to enter the Puja room.
The complainant has described the incident as follows:
“….As I and my husband were explaining to S.I. Pawar
that she had no right whatsoever to deny or prevent
our access to the Puja Room the Accused shouted that
if I was so keen on doing Puja, she would move the
Devara outside. She ran to the Devara and began to
push it. Finding it a little heavy, she then ran in frenzy,
picked up my clothes and that I had left on the bed,
took them to the living room and threw them on the
sofa. She then came back to the Puja Room and in a
premeditated fashion made a second attempt to push
the Devara out of the room. She proceeded to drag the
Devara in a rough manner thereby dislodging all the
frames and idols of our Kula Devatas making them fall
to the floor. The lamp that I had lit also fell to the
ground and the flame was extinguished. She did this
with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious
feelings of me and my husband knowing fully well that
it would not only wound our religious feelings but will
cause us a lot of hurt and anguish at this sacrilege at
her hands. At this point of time, even S.I. Pawar tried to
reason with her not to indulge in such a sacrilegious
act. Even then, the Accused ignored the pleas of her
own daughter and of S.I. Pawar to stop indulging in
such sacrilege to our Gods, and intentional insult to me
and my husband. Thereafter, Marisha shouted at the
Accused and asked her to stop indulging in such acts.”
(emphasis supplied)
5. On the basis of the above allegations, the complainant
preferred a complaint on 18.5.2011, which was registered as
Complaint Case No. 4701623/SS/11. Learned Additional Chief
Magistrate, after perusal of the complaint, found a prima facie
case to take cognizance under Section 504 IPC against the
accused and, consequently, issued process to the accused vide
his order dated 23.8.2011.
6. The appellant then preferred Criminal Revision Application
No. 1124 of 2011 challenging the order issuing the process for
offence punishable under Section 504 IPC. It was contented that
the allegation that she had indulged in any action with an
intention to provoke the complainant to break breach of public
peace or commit any other offence, was totally unfounded.
Further, it was also pointed out that no details had been furnished
in that complaint to show in what manner the appellant had
attempted to provoke the complainant, so as to attract Section
504 IPC. Further, it was pointed out that the complaint ought to
have disclosed the actual words if, at all, used by the appellant,
which would have provoked her to commit any other offence. It
was also pointed out that the learned Magistrate has not properly
understood the scope of Section 202 Cr.P.C. in issuing the process
to the appellant.
7. The Revision Application was resisted to by the complainant
and, referring to various statements made in the complaint, it was
submitted that the ingredients of Section 504 IPC have been fully
satisfied. Further, it was also pointed out that it is not necessary
that the complaint should verbatim reproduce the words spoken
by the appellant and that once the complaint makes out a prima
facie case for issuing the process and the Court is satisfied of the
same, the Court has got the power to issue the process under
Section 202 Cr.P.C.
8. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after examining the rival
contentions, found no merits in the application and dismissed the
same vide his order dated 27.7.2012. Aggrieved by the same,
the accused preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 2944 of 2012 for
quashing the proceedings initiated under Section 504 IPC before
the High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, after
perusing the rival contentions, also found no merits in the said
petition and dismissed the same, against which this appeal has
been preferred.
9. Shri C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant, submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed
an error in taking cognizance of an offence under Section 504 IPC,
in the absence of any material specifying the insulting words
actually used by the accused, which would have provocated the
complainant to commit any other offence. Learned senior
counsel submitted that the learned Magistrate ought not to have
taken the cognizance and issued the process on a complaint
which is nothing but verbatim reproduction of the language of
Section 504 IPC, without any particulars.
10. Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents, on the other hand, contended that the complaint
discloses sufficient materials leading to the offence under Section
504 IPC and the learned Magistrate has correctly taken
cognizance of the same and issued the process and the Sessions
Judge as well as the High Court has rightly rejected the prayer for
quashing the proceedings initiated under Section 504 IPC.
Learned senior counsel submitted that if the averments in the
complaint prima facie make out a case, the Magistrate can always
taken cognizance of the same and it is not necessary that the
complaint should verbatim reproduce all the ingredients of the
offence nor is it necessary that the complaint should state in so
many words that the intention of the accused was fraudulent.
11. We are, in this case, concerned only with the question as to
whether, on a reading of the complaint, a prima facie case has
been made out or not to issue process by the Magistrate. The
law as regards issuance of process in criminal cases is well
settled. At the complaint stage, the Magistrate is merely
concerned with the allegations made out in the complaint and has
only to prima facie satisfy whether there are sufficient grounds to
proceed against the accused and it is not the province of the
Magistrate to enquire into a detailed discussion on the merits or
demerits of the case. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is
extremely limited in the sense that the Magistrate, at this stage,
is expected to examine prima facie the truth or falsehood of the
allegations made in the complaint. Magistrate is not expected to
embark upon a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of
the case, but only consider the inherent probabilities apparent on
the statement made in the complaint. In Nagawwa v.
Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others (1976) 3 SCC
736, this Court held that once the Magistrate has exercised his
discretion in forming an opinion that there is ground for
proceeding, it is not for the Higher Courts to substitute its own
discretion for that of the Magistrate. The Magistrate has to
decide the question purely from the point of view of the
complaint, without at all adverting to any defence that the
accused may have.
12. Having noticed the scope of Section 202 Cr.P.C., let us
examine whether the ingredients of Section 504 IPC have been
made out for the Magistrate to initiate proceedings. Section 504
is extracted for easy reference:
“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.”
13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients,
viz., (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to
give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused
must intend or know that such provocation would cause
another to break the public peace or to commit any other
offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that
should provoke a person to break the public peace or to
commit any other offence. The person who intentionally
insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give
provocation to any other person and such provocation will
cause to break the public peace or to commit any other
offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504
are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting
the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct
amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the
accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient
by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC.
14. We may also indicate that it is not the law that the
actual words or language should figure in the complaint.
One has to read the complaint as a whole and, by doing so, if
the Magistrate comes to a conclusion, prima facie, that there
has been an intentional insult so as to provoke any person to
break the public peace or to commit any other offence, that
is sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of
Section 504 IPC. It is not the law that a complainant should
verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of
provoking the other person to commit any other offence.
The background facts, circumstances, the occasion, the
manner in which they are used, the person or persons to
whom they are addressed, the time, the conduct of the
person who has indulged in such actions are all relevant
factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint
lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504 IPC.
15. We have already extracted the relevant portions of the
complaint. If they are so read in the above legal settings, in
our view, a prima facie case has been made out for initiating
proceedings for the offence alleged under Section 504 IPC.
16. In such circumstances, we find no reason to take a
different view from that of the High Court. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed, without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case.
………………………………J.
(K. S. Radhakrishnan)
…………………………..….J.
(A. K. Sikri)
New Delhi,
August 22, 2013
Print Page
verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of
provoking the other person to commit any other offence.
The background facts, circumstances, the occasion, the
manner in which they are used, the person or persons to
whom they are addressed, the time, the conduct of the
person who has indulged in such actions are all relevant
factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint
lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504 IPC.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1231 OF 2013
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 382 of 2013]
Fiona Shrikhande .. Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Another .. Respondents
2. We are, in this case, concerned with an incident which
happened in Flat No. 5, 2nd Floor, Goolestan, East Wing, Cuffe
Parade, Mumbai, which led to the filing of a complaint alleging
offences under Sections 294 and 504 IPC.
3. The Complainant (2nd respondent herein) is the sister-in-law
of the accused, being the wife of the complainant’s brother.
Complainant and her brother are the sole surviving heirs of their
parents who are no more. Facts indicate that the father had the
tenancy rights over the flat where the incident is alleged to have
taken place.
4. Complaint Case No. 4701623/SS/11 was filed before the
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court at Esplanade
Mumbai alleging offences punishable under Sections 298 and 504
IPC. Complainant stated that she moved into the above
mentioned flat on 23.04.2011 along with her husband, her
servants and necessary household belongings. Having come to
know of the same, her brother along with accused came to India
from USA and occupied one out of the four bedrooms in the flat
and then indulged in several unlawful acts with a view to push the
complainant out of the flat. On 8.5.2011, the accused
accompanied by her daughter (born to her from her first
marriage) came to the flat at about 4.00 p.m. and then left for
filing a complaint before the Cuffe Parade Police Station against
the complainant stating that she had broken the locks of their
rooms in the flat. After lodging the complaint, she came back to
the flat and rushed into the room where the idols are kept and
shouted that she would not permit anyone to enter the Puja room.
The complainant has described the incident as follows:
“….As I and my husband were explaining to S.I. Pawar
that she had no right whatsoever to deny or prevent
our access to the Puja Room the Accused shouted that
if I was so keen on doing Puja, she would move the
Devara outside. She ran to the Devara and began to
push it. Finding it a little heavy, she then ran in frenzy,
picked up my clothes and that I had left on the bed,
took them to the living room and threw them on the
sofa. She then came back to the Puja Room and in a
premeditated fashion made a second attempt to push
the Devara out of the room. She proceeded to drag the
Devara in a rough manner thereby dislodging all the
frames and idols of our Kula Devatas making them fall
to the floor. The lamp that I had lit also fell to the
ground and the flame was extinguished. She did this
with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious
feelings of me and my husband knowing fully well that
it would not only wound our religious feelings but will
cause us a lot of hurt and anguish at this sacrilege at
her hands. At this point of time, even S.I. Pawar tried to
reason with her not to indulge in such a sacrilegious
act. Even then, the Accused ignored the pleas of her
own daughter and of S.I. Pawar to stop indulging in
such sacrilege to our Gods, and intentional insult to me
and my husband. Thereafter, Marisha shouted at the
Accused and asked her to stop indulging in such acts.”
(emphasis supplied)
5. On the basis of the above allegations, the complainant
preferred a complaint on 18.5.2011, which was registered as
Complaint Case No. 4701623/SS/11. Learned Additional Chief
Magistrate, after perusal of the complaint, found a prima facie
case to take cognizance under Section 504 IPC against the
accused and, consequently, issued process to the accused vide
his order dated 23.8.2011.
6. The appellant then preferred Criminal Revision Application
No. 1124 of 2011 challenging the order issuing the process for
offence punishable under Section 504 IPC. It was contented that
the allegation that she had indulged in any action with an
intention to provoke the complainant to break breach of public
peace or commit any other offence, was totally unfounded.
Further, it was also pointed out that no details had been furnished
in that complaint to show in what manner the appellant had
attempted to provoke the complainant, so as to attract Section
504 IPC. Further, it was pointed out that the complaint ought to
have disclosed the actual words if, at all, used by the appellant,
which would have provoked her to commit any other offence. It
was also pointed out that the learned Magistrate has not properly
understood the scope of Section 202 Cr.P.C. in issuing the process
to the appellant.
7. The Revision Application was resisted to by the complainant
and, referring to various statements made in the complaint, it was
submitted that the ingredients of Section 504 IPC have been fully
satisfied. Further, it was also pointed out that it is not necessary
that the complaint should verbatim reproduce the words spoken
by the appellant and that once the complaint makes out a prima
facie case for issuing the process and the Court is satisfied of the
same, the Court has got the power to issue the process under
Section 202 Cr.P.C.
8. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after examining the rival
contentions, found no merits in the application and dismissed the
same vide his order dated 27.7.2012. Aggrieved by the same,
the accused preferred Criminal Writ Petition No. 2944 of 2012 for
quashing the proceedings initiated under Section 504 IPC before
the High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, after
perusing the rival contentions, also found no merits in the said
petition and dismissed the same, against which this appeal has
been preferred.
9. Shri C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant, submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed
an error in taking cognizance of an offence under Section 504 IPC,
in the absence of any material specifying the insulting words
actually used by the accused, which would have provocated the
complainant to commit any other offence. Learned senior
counsel submitted that the learned Magistrate ought not to have
taken the cognizance and issued the process on a complaint
which is nothing but verbatim reproduction of the language of
Section 504 IPC, without any particulars.
10. Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents, on the other hand, contended that the complaint
discloses sufficient materials leading to the offence under Section
504 IPC and the learned Magistrate has correctly taken
cognizance of the same and issued the process and the Sessions
Judge as well as the High Court has rightly rejected the prayer for
quashing the proceedings initiated under Section 504 IPC.
Learned senior counsel submitted that if the averments in the
complaint prima facie make out a case, the Magistrate can always
taken cognizance of the same and it is not necessary that the
complaint should verbatim reproduce all the ingredients of the
offence nor is it necessary that the complaint should state in so
many words that the intention of the accused was fraudulent.
11. We are, in this case, concerned only with the question as to
whether, on a reading of the complaint, a prima facie case has
been made out or not to issue process by the Magistrate. The
law as regards issuance of process in criminal cases is well
settled. At the complaint stage, the Magistrate is merely
concerned with the allegations made out in the complaint and has
only to prima facie satisfy whether there are sufficient grounds to
proceed against the accused and it is not the province of the
Magistrate to enquire into a detailed discussion on the merits or
demerits of the case. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is
extremely limited in the sense that the Magistrate, at this stage,
is expected to examine prima facie the truth or falsehood of the
allegations made in the complaint. Magistrate is not expected to
embark upon a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of
the case, but only consider the inherent probabilities apparent on
the statement made in the complaint. In Nagawwa v.
Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others (1976) 3 SCC
736, this Court held that once the Magistrate has exercised his
discretion in forming an opinion that there is ground for
proceeding, it is not for the Higher Courts to substitute its own
discretion for that of the Magistrate. The Magistrate has to
decide the question purely from the point of view of the
complaint, without at all adverting to any defence that the
accused may have.
12. Having noticed the scope of Section 202 Cr.P.C., let us
examine whether the ingredients of Section 504 IPC have been
made out for the Magistrate to initiate proceedings. Section 504
is extracted for easy reference:
“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.”
13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients,
viz., (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to
give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused
must intend or know that such provocation would cause
another to break the public peace or to commit any other
offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that
should provoke a person to break the public peace or to
commit any other offence. The person who intentionally
insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give
provocation to any other person and such provocation will
cause to break the public peace or to commit any other
offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504
are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting
the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct
amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the
accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient
by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC.
14. We may also indicate that it is not the law that the
actual words or language should figure in the complaint.
One has to read the complaint as a whole and, by doing so, if
the Magistrate comes to a conclusion, prima facie, that there
has been an intentional insult so as to provoke any person to
break the public peace or to commit any other offence, that
is sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of
Section 504 IPC. It is not the law that a complainant should
verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of
provoking the other person to commit any other offence.
The background facts, circumstances, the occasion, the
manner in which they are used, the person or persons to
whom they are addressed, the time, the conduct of the
person who has indulged in such actions are all relevant
factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint
lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504 IPC.
15. We have already extracted the relevant portions of the
complaint. If they are so read in the above legal settings, in
our view, a prima facie case has been made out for initiating
proceedings for the offence alleged under Section 504 IPC.
16. In such circumstances, we find no reason to take a
different view from that of the High Court. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed, without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case.
………………………………J.
(K. S. Radhakrishnan)
…………………………..….J.
(A. K. Sikri)
New Delhi,
August 22, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment