Jharkhand High Court
Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Tiwary vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... Opposite ... on 15 February, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1 Cr.M.P. No. 3641 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 3641 of 2023
1.
Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Tiwary, aged about 33 years, son
of Suraj Kumar Tiwary, resident of Nawagaon, Gomeadih,
Ranchi P.O. - Danadih B.O., P.S.- Bundu, Dist.- Ranchi PIN-
835204, Jharkhand
2. Suman Kumar, aged about 35 years, son of Rajendra
Prasad, resident of Tupudana Lal Basti, Tupudana, Hatia,
Ranchi , P.O.- Hatia, P.S.- Tupudana, Dist. - Ranchi, PIN-
834003, Ranchi ...... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Opposite Party
For the Petitioner : Mr. Summet Gadodia, Adv.
Ms. Shilpi Shandil, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha , Spl.PP
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of CrPC with a prayer
for quashing entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated
22.02.2023 wherein the cognizance for the alleged offence
punishable under Section 504 of IPC has been taken against the
petitioners, in connection with Dhurwa P.S. case no. 212 of 2022,
dated 05.08.2022 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 952 of 2023
pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
3. The brief facts of the case, is that the petitioners entered into the
factory premises of the informant being accompanied by armed
personnel and abused the security personnel employed by the
informant, demanded ransom of Rs. 5,00,00,000/-, committed
theft, and made murderous assault upon the employees of the
informant. On the basis of the written report, submitted by the
informant, the police registered the said case involving the
offences punishable under Section 447, 323, 324, 307, 504, 379, 511,
34 of IPC but after completion of the investigation, police found
that only the offence punishable under Section 504 is made out
and submitted Final Report. Learned CJM, Ranchi basing upon
the materials in the record, found prima facie for the offence
punishable under Section 504 of IPC, being made out against the
petitioners and took the cognizance of the said offence and
directed for issuance of summon inter alia to the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Fiona
Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2013 14
SCC 44, , para 13 of which reads as under:-
" 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."
submits that therein the Hon'ble Supreme court of India has
laid down the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section
504 of IPC.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vikram
Johar v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2019) 14 SCC 207 ,
para 24 of which reads as under :
"24. Now, we revert back to the allegations in the complaint against the
appellant. The allegation is that the appellant with two or three other
unknown persons, one of whom was holding a revolver, came to the
complainant's house and abused him in filthy language and attempted
to assault him and when some neighbours arrived there the appellant
and the other persons accompanying him fled the spot. The above
allegation taking on its face value does not satisfy the ingredients of
Sections 504 and 506 as has been enumerated by this Court in the above
two judgments. 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 mere allegation that the appellant came and abused the
complainant does not satisfy the ingredients as laid down in para 13 of
the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v.
State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] ."
and submits that 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 mere allegation that the
appellant came and abused the complainant does not satisfy the
ingredients.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the judgment
of this court in the case of Dr. Nishikant Dubey vs. The State of
Jharkhand passed in CrMP No. 3246 of 2022 and analogous cases,
wherein this Court relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid case, and held that in the
absence of any allegation against the accused person of
intentionally insulting the informant or anyone else or the
accused person of giving any provocation to informant or anyone
else intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation
would cause, the person provoked to break public peace, the
offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code
cannot be made out and it is submitted that there is absolutely no
allegation anywhere to the effect that the petitioners intentionally
insulting the informant or anyone else nor there is any allegation
against the petitioners of giving any provocation to informant or
anyone else intending or knowing it to be likely that such
provocation would cause the person provoked to break public
peace and in the absence of any materials regarding these
essential ingredients, the offences punishable under Section 504 of
the Indian Penal Code is not made out, hence, the continuation of
the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law,
hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding as well
as the order dated 22.02.2023 in connection with Dhurwa P.S. case
no. 212 of 2022, dated 05.08.2022 corresponding to G.R. Case no.
952 of 2023 be quashed and set aside.
7. Learned Spl. PP, on the other hand, vehemently, opposes the
prayer of quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as the
order dated 22.02.2023 in connection with Dhurwa P.S. case no.
212 of 2022, dated 05.08.2022 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 952
of 2023 and submits that the materials in the record, including the
statement of the witnesses recorded, which finds place in the case
diary, suggests that there is ample material in the record, to
constitute the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC and
learned Magistrate, has acted upon the Final Report submitted by
the police along with the accompanying materials collected
during investigation of the case, hence, no illegality has been
committed by the CJM, Ranchi and hence, it is submitted that this
criminal miscellaneous petition, being without any merit be
dismissed.
8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials available in the record, this court has no
hesitation in holding that as already indicated above; in the
absence of any allegation against the accused persons of this case,
of intentionally insulting the informant or anyone else or giving
any provocation to the informant or anyone else, intending or
knowing it to be likely that such provocation would cause him to
break public peace and in absence of any materials regarding
these essential ingredients, the offences punishable under Section
504 of the Indian Penal Code could not be made out.
9. Now coming to the facts of the case, the allegation against the
petitioners is that they entered into the factory premises and
abused the employee of the informant stationed there and
assaulted and demanded extortion but all such allegations were
found to be not true during the investigation of the case and
police has not found the said allegations to be true and the Final
Report has been submitted alleging only the commission of the
offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC and there is no
quarrel that from the part of the State any shortcoming was there
in the investigation conducted by the police.
10. After going through the materials in the record, this court finds
that at the most, the allegation against the petitioners is that the
petitioners went to the spot and abused and assaulted the persons
present there, and the same in the absence of any allegation that
there was intentional insult made by the petitioners, that too of
such a degree that should provoke a person, to break public
peace, this court is the considered view that certainly, even if the
allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true
in its entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC
is not made out. Hence, this is a fit case, where the continuation of
criminal proceeding, will amount of abuse of process of law.
11. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding as well as the order
dated 22.02.2023 in connection with Dhurwa P.S. case no. 212 of
2022, dated 05.08.2022 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 952 of 2023
is quashed and set aside.
12. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 19th February, 2024
Smita /AFR
