The Patna High Court, while allowing a petition filed for quashing of the order dated 28.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, held that in a case under Section 504 of IPC, provocations must be followed to intentionally insults, which may likely cause a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offense.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant, one of the Director of Imperial Car Private Limited, alleged that since he gave some commitment to the petitioner for payment of money against the sale of a car, he had a telephone conversation with the petitioner who was complaining about the delay in such payment and allegedly some words were used by the petitioner which were allegedly not only uncivil and uncalled for but downright criminal intimidation. It is alleged that out of vengeance the dealership of the complainant was cancelled and the security deposit was not refunded.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the impugned order of cognizance is fit to be quashed/set aside. The mandate of section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be followed which was not appears followed by the learned trial court while taking cognizance. He argued that from the narration/face of allegation as raised through the present complaint case, the required legal ingredients of Section 504 of IPC, for which cognizance through impugned order was taken against petitioner is prima facie not being made out.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent conceded that M/s HMFC Ltd. was not arrayed as an accused company in the present complaint.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the act of the petitioner as alleged arises out of business transactions for which the company is vicariously liable, but in want of party as it was not arrayed as an accused, the vicarious liability cannot be said established prima facie. Hence, on this score, the impugned order of cognizance appears bad in the eyes of the law.
The Court observed that in a case under Section 504 of IPC, provocations must be followed to intentionally insults, which may likely cause a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offense. Merely by using some untoward words as raised through complaint or using certain words that have abusive value, it cannot be said that a person received provocation intentionally out of insult, which may likely break the public peace.
The decision of the Court:
The Patna High Court, allowing the petition, held that the basic legal ingredients of Section 504 of IPC are not made out and hence the order is required to be set aside.
Case Title: Chandan Bose v The State of Bihar & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha
Case no.: CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40723 of 2016
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Saket Tiwary
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhayay
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
