Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Arpita Pal Ors vs Sushil Chandra Pal on 23 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 1850 of 2020
Arpita Pal Ors.
Vs
Sushil Chandra Pal.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee,
Mr. Akashdeep Mukherjee,
Mr. Omar Faruk Gazi,
Ms. Soumali Das,
Ms. Indrani Roy,
Mr. Soumyadeep Nag,
Mr. Suman Sarkar.
For the Opposite Party : Ms. Subhasree Patel,
Mr. Soham Banerjee.
Hearing concluded on : 30.01.2024
Judgment on : 23.02.2024
2
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for
quashing of proceedings in Complaint Case No. 207 of 2017 dated under
Sections 504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the
Learned 4th Judicial Magistrate at Barasat.
FACTS:-
2. The petitioner No. 1 is the daughter in law of the opposite party. The
other petitioners are her parents and other family members.
3. The petitioner no. 1 states that she was compelled to live in her parental
house “due to several cruel treatments by the persons of her matrimonial
house”. A case being Rishra Police Station case no. 34 of 2016 under
Sections 498A/406/307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 filed by the
petitioner no. 1 is pending before Learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate at Shreerampore.
4. The allegations against the petitioners in short are that the petitioner no.
1 use to call the son of complainant and threaten him with dire
consequences and also use filthy language.
5. The petitioners state that the complainant and his son instituted two
different cases on similar cause of action, one is Special No. 222 of 2018
corresponding to Complaint Case No. 460 of 2017 dated under Sections
500/501/502/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending
before the Special Judge (MP MLA Court) at Barasat and another
3
before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat under Sections
504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 being Complaint case no.
207 of 2017 dated 09.02.2017. It is submitted that both these cases are
the counter blast of Rishra Police Station Case No. 34 of 2016 under
Sections 498A/406/307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
6. It is stated that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the
present case and there is no involvement of the petitioners in the
commission of offences as alleged in the instant case.
7. From the petition of Complaint, it appears that:-
i) The Complainant’s son was married to the petitioner no.1 and
since their marriage, the petitioners are creating trouble in the
Complainant’s family. The petitioner no. 1 regularly used to
quarrel with the son of the complainant.
ii) The petitioner no.1 allegedly kept going to her parent’s house,
refusing to return, but the complainant’s son kept bringing her
back on assurances.
iii) The petitioner no. 1 allegedly used to abuse the son of the
Complainant in filthy language and thereafter filed a complaint
iv) The petitioner no. 1 allegedly left her matrimonial home on
04.04.2015 by taking all her articles and valuables.
v) On 07.06.2015 the petitioner no. 1 3 allegedly attacked
the Complainant’s house and abused them in filthy language
4
in public (before the local people) and also threatened to
throw the complainant out of his house by using the laws in
favour of the women.
vi) The petitioner no. 1 has filed a case under the PWDV Act, against
the Complainant and his son.
vii) The petitioner no. 1 and 3 then started staying in the
Complainant’s house and continued to abuse every person in the
house and also continued to threaten.
viii) On 21.09.2015, the petitioner no. 1 wrote to the Complainant’s
previous office claiming the Complainants pension as
maintenance for which the Complainant has suffered a loss of
face and self respect.
ix) The petitioner No.1 filed a case under Sections 498A/406/307 of
the Indian Penal Code, one year after leaving her matrimonial
home and also continued to threaten the Complainant’s son over
phone and spreading lies about him.
x) Then allegedly on several days over phone (Social media/SMS/e-
mail) the petitioner no.1 threatened and abused the
Complainant’s son in filthy language and making false vulgar
allegations.
xi) The petitioner no.1 is a divorcee and suppressing the same has
married the Complainant’s son.
5
8. The proceedings in the present case has been initiated for offence
punishable under Sections 504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. Section 504 of I.P.C., lays down:-
“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.
Ingredients of offence.- The essential ingredients of the
offence under sec. 504 are as follows:-
(1) The accused intentionally insulted someone;
(2) He thereby intended to give him provocation;
(3) He knew that it was likely that such provocation would
cause that person to commit a breach of the peace or to
commit any other offence.”
10. Section 506 of I.P.C., lays down:-
“506. Punishment for criminal Intimidation.-Whoever
commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both,
if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.-and
if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause
the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an
offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven
years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or
with both.
Ingredients of offence.- The essential ingredients of the
offence under sec. 506 are as follows:-
(1) The accused threatened someone with injury to his
person, reputation or property, or to the person, reputation
or property of another in whom the former was interested;
6
(2) The accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the
victim of offence;
(3) The accused did so to cause the victim to perform any
act which he was not legally bound to do.”
11. In Mohammad Wajid Anr. vs State of U.P. Ors., Criminal
Appeal No. 2340 of 2023 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 10656
of 2022), on August 08, 2023, the Supreme Court held:-
“24. An offence under Section 503 has following essentials:-
1) Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or
(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is
interested.
2) The threat must be with intent;
(i) to cause alarm to that person; or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally
bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such
threat; or
(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person
is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of
such threat.
25. Section 504 of the IPC contemplates intentionally insulting a
person and thereby provoking such person insulted to breach the
peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely
that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause a
breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. Mere
abuse may not come within the purview of the section. But, the
words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an
intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a
breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence. If
abusive language is used intentionally and is of such a nature
as would in the ordinary course of events lead the person
insulted to break the peace or to commit an offence under the
law, the case is not taken away from the purview of the Section
merely because the insulted person did not actually break the
peace or commit any offence having exercised selfcontrol or
having been subjected to abject terror by the offender. In judging
whether particular abusive language is attracted by Section 504,
IPC, the court has to find out what, in the ordinary
circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive language used
and not what the complainant actually did as a result of his
peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament or sense of discipline.
7
It is the ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is
the test for considering whether the abusive language is an
intentional insult likely to provoke the person insulted to commit
a breach of the peace and not the particular conduct or
temperament of the complainant.
26. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not
amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section
504, IPC if it does not have the necessary element of being likely
to incite the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of
an offence and the other element of the accused intending to
provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or
knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit a breach of
the peace. Each case of abusive language shall have to be
decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of that case
and there cannot be a general proposition that no one commits
an offence under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive
language against the complainant. In King Emperor v.
Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78, a Division Bench
of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:-
“To constitute an offence under Section 504, I.P.C. it is sufficient
if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the other party to
lose his temper and say or do something violent. Public peace
can be broken by angry words as well as deeds.”
(Emphasis supplied)”
12. The Court further held:-
13. In present case, the facts and circumstances of the case and more
particularly, considering the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR,
a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506
of the IPC may probably could be said to have been disclosed but not
under Section 504 of the IPC. The allegations with respect to the offence
8
punishable under Section 504 of the IPC can also be looked at from a
different perspective. In the FIR, all that the first informant has stated is
that abusive language was used by the accused persons. What exactly
was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the FIR. One of the
essential elements, as discussed above, constituting an offence under
Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have been an act or conduct
amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive
words, it is necessary to know what those words were in order to decide
whether the use of those words amounted to intentional insult. In the
absence of these words, it is not possible to decide whether the
ingredient of intentional insult is present. (Mohammad Wajid Anr. vs
State of U.P. Ors., (Supra)). As such the ingredient required to
constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC is prima facie not present
against the petitioners.
14. It thus appears from the record that there are prima facie materials to
show that the petitioner no. 1 and 3 had the intention to cause alarm to
the complainant. As such the ingredients required to constitute an
offence under Section 506 IPC is on record in respect of the petitioner no.
1 and 3, Arpita Pal and Gopa Das. The petitioner no. 1 and 3 are to face
trial in respect of the said offence.
15. CRR 1850 of 2020 is allowed.
16. The proceedings in Complaint Case No. 207 of 2017 dated under
Sections 504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the
9
Learned 4th Judicial Magistrate at Barasat is hereby quashed in respect
of the petitioners namely Subir Das and Arpan Das. The offence under
Section 504 IPC is also quashed in respect of the petitioners namely
Arpita Pal and Gopa Das. But the petitioners, Arpita Pal and Gopa Das
are to face trial in respect of the offence under Sections 506/34 of
IPC.
17. Trial Court to proceed accordingly in respect of accuseds Arpita Pal
and Gopa Das.
18. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.
19. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
20. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary
compliance.
21. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied
expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
