Bombay High Court
Dilip Mahadu Gadhari vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 5 January, 2022
Bench: M. G. Sewlikar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
952 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2022
DILIP MAHADU GADHARI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Shri. Datta A. Madake, Advocate for the applicant
Shri. V. S. Badakh, APP for the respondent/State
CORAM : M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.
DATED : 5th January, 2022
PER COURT :-
1. By this application, applicant has challenged the
order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate and
confirmed by the Appellate Court.
2. It is the case of the complainant that the
applicant was working as Head-Master in Prabhodani
Vidyalaya, Shelgaon, Tq. Kannad. On 10th June, 2010 at 5.30
p.m. work of fixing doors to the class rooms was in progress
in the premises of the school. That time accused Ramesh
Mangate came there and abused the informant. He
manhandled informant and threatened to kill him if he
remained on the spot and tried to fix the doors. The incident
took place in front of the teacher and the employees of the
rev1.22.odt 1 of 9
school. Informant went to the police station and lodged the
report. However, police registered it as non-cognizable
offence.
3. The learned Magistrate directed under Section
156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the police to
register the offence. Accordingly, offence was registered and
after conducting investigation charge-sheet came to be filed.
4. The learned Magistrate framed the charge under
Sections 341, 448, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code. It was read over and explained to the accused who
pleaded not guilty to it and claimed to be tried. His defence
is of total denial.
5. The learned Magistrate after recording evidence
of witnesses and hearing the accused passed the order of
acquittal by the order dated 21 st January, 2017. The learned
Magistrate observed that there is change in the spot of the
incident. The learned Magistrate observed that as per the
complaint, spot of the incident is the office of the informant
rev1.22.odt 2 of 9
whereas in the testimony, the complainant mentioned the
spot as in front of class room No.10. The learned Magistrate
further held that offence under Sections 504, 506 of the
Indian Penal Code also could not be proved for want of
cogent evidence.
6. Complainant carried appeal to the Sessions Court.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad by his
judgment and order dated 10th December, 2021 dismissed
the appeal holding that there is no evidence of manhandling.
PW-2 Vishwas does not say anything about manhandling.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that applicant
did not specify the alleged foul words and therefore, offence
under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made
out. Offence under Section 506 is also not made out.
Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed
the order of acquittal.
7. Learned counsel Shri. Madke for the applicant
submits that there is no change in the spot of the incident.
He submits that class room No. 10 is adjacent to the office
rev1.22.odt 3 of 9
of the informant. He submits that the incident took place in
the school and the complainant has stated that the incident
took place in front of class room No. 10 which means in the
school itself. He submits that both the witnesses i.e.
complainant and PW-2 have stated that the accused abused
the informant in filthy language and also threatened the
informant to kill him. He further submits that both the
witnesses have stated that applicant was manhandled. He
submits that all the ingredients of the offence under
Sections 323, 504, 506 of the IPC are clearly made out.
8. So far as manhandling is concerned, learned
Additional Sessions Judge has observed that PW-2 Vishwas
does not say anything about manhandling. Admittedly, the
relations between the applicant and the informant are
strained. So far as offence under Section 504 of the IPC is
concerned. Neither in the complaint nor in the oral testimony
specific abuses are mentioned. In order to prove the offence
Section 504 of the IPC specific abuses are required to be
mentioned. Section 504 of the IPC reads as under:
rev1.22.odt 4 of 9
"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."
9. Section 503 of the IPC deals with criminal
intimidation. Section 503 of the IPC read as under:
"503. Criminal intimidation.- Whoever threatens
another with any injury to his person, reputation or
property, or to the person or reputation of any one
in whom that person is interested, with intent to
cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person
to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or
to omit to do any act which that person is legally
entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat, commits criminal
intimidation."
10. Both these offences fell for consideration before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vikram Johar
Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2019) 14
Supreme Court Cases 207 reads thus:
"22. In para 13 of the judgment, this Court
has noticed the ingredients of Section 504
IPC, which are to the following effect : ( Fiona
Shrikhande case, SCC p.49)
"13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the
following ingredients viz. (a) intentional insult,
rev1.22.odt 5 of 9
(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."
23. In another judgment i.e. Manik Taneja v.
State of Karnataka, this Court has again
occasion to examine the ingredients of
Sections 503 and 506. In the above case also,
case was registered for the offence under
Sections 353 and 506 IPC. After noticing
Section 503, which defines criminal
intimidation, this Court laid down the following
in paras 11 and 12 : (SCC pp.427-28)
"11. A reading of the definition of
"criminal intimidation" would indicate that
there must be an act of threatening to
another person, of causing an injury to the
person, reputation, or property of the person
threatened, or to the person in whom the
threatened person is interested and the threat
must be with the intent to cause alarm to the
rev1.22.odt 6 of 9
person threatened or it must be to do any act
which he is not legally bound to do or omit to
do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
12. In the instant case, the allegation is that
the appellants have abused the complainant
and obstructed the second respondent from
discharging his public duties and spoiled the
integrity of the second respondent. It is the
intention of the accused that has to be
considered in deciding as to whether what he
has stated comes within the meaning of
"criminal intimidation". The threat must be
with intention to cause alarm to the
complainant to cause that person to do or
omit to do any work. Mere expression of any
words without any intention to cause alarm
would not be sufficient to bring in the
application of this section. But material has to
be placed on record to show that the intention
is to cause alarm to the complainant. From
the facts and circumstances of the case, it
appears that there was no intention on the
part of the appellants to cause alarm in the
mind of the second respondent causing
obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as
the comments posted on Facebook are
concerned, it appears that it is a public forum
meant for helping the public and the act of the
appellants posting a comment on Facebook
may not attract ingredients of criminal
intimidation in Section 503 IPC."
In the above case, allegation was that
the appellant had abused the complainant.
The Court held that the mere fact that the
allegation that accused had abused the
complainant does not satisfy the ingredients
of Section 506 IPC."
rev1.22.odt 7 of 9
11. In view of this decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court it is clear that the intentional insult has
to be of such a degree that it should provoke a person to
break the public peace or to commit any other offence.
The mere fact that the accused abused the complainant,
as such is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction
under Section 504 of IPC.
12. Similarly for attracting offence under Section
506 of IPC the threat must be with intention to cause
alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or
omit to do any work. Mere expression of words without
any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to
bring in the application of this section. No material has
been placed on record to show that the intention was to
cause alarm to the complainant. Merely mentioning that
the respondents threatened the applicant is not sufficient
to constitute the offence under Section 506 of IPC. There
is no evidence to show that the alleged threat was with
intention to cause alarm to the applicant. In this view of
rev1.22.odt 8 of 9
the matter, following order is passed.
ORDER
. Application is dismissed.
[M. G. SEWLIKAR, J.]
ssp
rev1.22.odt 9 of 9
