Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 7 July, 2025
2025:UHC:5807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.1397 of 2018
7th July, 2025
Subhash Sharma. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & another. ...Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence: -
Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, Mr. Ravi Joshi and Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, Advocates
for the petitioner.
Mr. B.N. Molakhi, Deputy Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
This criminal writ petition was initially filed by
the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. No.0166 of 2018, for
the offences punishable under Section 469 & 504 I.P.C.
and Section 66 of Information Technology (Amendment)
Act, 2000, registered at Police Station Dalanwala, District
Dehradun.
2. During pendency of this criminal writ petition,
the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against
the petitioner, on 08.08.2018. A Coordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 08.08.2019 dismissed the
writ petition as infructuous on the statement made by
learned State Counsel that charge sheet has been filed in
the Court. Petitioner challenged the order dated
08.08.2019 before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble
Apex Court vide order dated 30.08.2024 remanded the
matter back to this Court and gave liberty to the
1
2025:UHC:5807
petitioner to challenge the validity of charge sheet.
Pursuant to the order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court,
petitioner filed the amendment application, whereby he
has sought quashing of charge sheet dated 08.08.2018
and also entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.3851 of
2018 pending in the Court of A.C.J.M, Dehradun. The
said application has been allowed by this Court vide
order dated 04.07.2025.
3. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that an
F.I.R. dated 20.07.2018 was registered on the complaint
moved by respondent no.3, wherein it is stated that
petitioner has raised frivolous allegations against
respondent no.3, who was working as an Assistant
Teacher in Government Primary School Ajapur Kalan,
Dehradun, regarding her educational qualification; that
petitioner had twice held Press Conference i.e. on
30.06.2018 and 18.07.2018; that, in the Press
Conference, petitioner alleged that respondent no.3 does
not possess valid educational qualification for holding the
post of Assistant Teacher.
4. This writ petition was filed in July, 2018. No
interim order was granted to the petitioner. During
pendency of the writ petition, the Investigating Officer
submitted charge sheet on 08.08.2018, wherein charges
under Sections 469, 499, 500 & 504 I.P.C. were levelled
against the petitioner. After submission of the charge
sheet in the Court, petitioner was heard on charges and,
after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun
ordered for framing of charges under Section 504 I.P.C.
and charges under Section 469, 499 & 500 were dropped
2
2025:UHC:5807
and the following charge was framed against the
petitioner, on 03.12.2021:
“;g fd fnukad 30&6&2018 dks le; 1-30 cts ls 2 cts
nksigj dks izsl Dyc ijs.M xzkm.M nsgjknwu esa vkius
yksd’kkfUr Hkax djus o izdksfir djus ds vk’k; ls okfnuh
eqdnke dks xkyh&xykSp dj viekfur fd;kA bl izdkj
vkius /kkjk 504 Hkk0na0l0 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k
tks bl U;k;ky; ds izlaKku ds vUrxZr gSA”
5. Mr. Rajendra Kotiyal, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that, at the time of framing of charge
on 03.12.2021, learned trial Court held that, prima facie,
only offence under Section 504 I.P.C. is made out against
the petitioner; that, when charge was framed on
03.12.2021, a new charge has been levelled against the
petitioner that on 30.06.2018, between 01:30 p.m. to
02:00 p.m. at Press Club, Parade Ground, Dehradun
petitioner, with an intention of disrupting and provoking
public peace, had abused and insulted the respondent
no.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a
bare perusal of the F.I.R. and the statements of
respondent no.3/complainant would reveal that
provisions contained in Section 504 I.P.C. are not
attracted. He submits that since respondent no.3 did not
possess requisite educational qualification to be
appointed as Assistant Teacher, hence, he sought
information through R.T.I. regarding educational
qualification possessed by respondent no.3, but the said
documents were not supplied to the petitioner and,
thereafter, petitioner filed Appeal and, in that Appeal
also, those documents were not supplied to him and, in
order to wreak vengeance, impugned F.I.R. has been
lodged against the petitioner.
3
2025:UHC:5807
6. Section 504 of Indian Penal Code is extracted
hereunder for the ready 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.
7. Section 504 of I.P.C. consists of two parts.
Firstly, the actus reus-being the intentional insult which
gives rise to the provocation. Secondly, the mens rea i.e.
the intention or knowledge on the part of the accused
that such intentional provocation is likely to cause the
person insulted to break public peace or commit any
other offence. The animus nocendi in Section 504 I.P.C.
is that the accused should “intentionally insult” the other
person with the intention or knowledge that the
provocation caused by such insult is likely to result in
the commission of breach of public peace or any other
offence by the person who has been so insulted. The
offence is said to be complete once the accused person
makes “intentional insult” with the aforesaid mens rea.
Hence, intention or knowledge on the part of the accused
person that his actions of making “intentional insult”
have the potential to provoke the person insulted is sine
qua non for the commission of the offence under Section
504 I.P.C.
8. The natural corollary of the above discussion is
that if the accused does not intend to give provocation,
the offence is not made out. An insult without an
“intention to insult” is not punishable under Section
4
2025:UHC:5807
504IPC. Further, “intentional insult” must be of such a
degree that it has the potential to provoke a reasonable
person to break the public peace or to commit any other
offence. It is trite that whether the person provoked
further commits an illegal act or not is immaterial to
draw the conclusion of culpability under Section 504
I.P.C. The “intentional insult” and provocation must be
so proximate and close that the accused has either the
intention or the knowledge that the intentional insult
made by him is likely to cause the provoked person to
break public peace or commit some other offence.
However, what would be the nature of “intentional insult”
causing provocation, to draw culpability under Section
504 I.P.C. would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.
9. In the case in hand, the respondent no.3, in
her cross-examination, has stated that neither she has
ever met with the petitioner nor she was present in the
Press Conference and, furthermore, the petitioner has
not used abusive language against her.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of “Mohammad Wajid & another Vs.
State of U.P. & others, reported in (2023) 20 SCC 219,
wherein the Court held that each case of abusive
language shall have to be decided in the light of the facts
& circumstances of that case and there cannot be a
general proposition that no one commits an offence
under Section 504 I.P.C., if he merely uses abusive
language against the complainant. Paragraph nos.29, 30
& 31 of the said judgment are reproduced below:
5
2025:UHC:5807
“29. Section 504 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 self-control or having been
subjected to abject terror by the offender.
30. 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. 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.
31. 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
6
2025:UHC:5807
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 [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 IPC 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)”
11. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that
since charges have already been framed in the matter,
therefore, petitioner has an efficacious remedy of
challenging it in the Revision Petition and not to
approach this Court by way of filing Writ Petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. Petitioner initially filed this writ petition for
quashing the impugned F.I.R. During pendency of this
criminal writ petition, the Investigating Officer submitted
charge sheet against the petitioner, on 08.08.2018.
When the matter was sub-judice before the Hon’ble Apex
Court, charges were framed, hence, the Hon’ble Apex
Court remitted the matter back to this Court and gave
liberty to the petitioner to challenge the validity of charge
sheet. At this stage, petitioner cannot be relegated to
avail remedy of filing Revision Petition, challenging
framing of charges against him.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the material available on7
2025:UHC:5807
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that mere
holding of the Press Conference, questioning the
education qualification of a person, would not attract the
provisions contained in Section 504 I.P.C. It is admitted
case of the parties that petitioner has not used any
abusive language against respondent no.3 or have used
words which would result in intentional insult with
intent to provoke breach of the peace, which is also
evident from the statement given by respondent no.3,
therefore, this Court is of the view that offence
punishable under Section 504 I.P.C. is not made out
against the petitioner.
14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.V.
Ram Kumar Vs. State of Telangana & another, reported
in (2025) 3 SCC 475, while dealing with an identical
issue, has held in paragraph no.23 as under:
“23. Thus, upon reading the complaint as a
whole, if the Magistrate comes to a
conclusion, prima facie, that there has been an
intentional insult made by the accused to the
complainant so as to provoke the latter to
break the public peace or to commit any other
offence, then only the act complained of would
fall within the ambit of Section 504IPC. The
law does not mandate that the complainant
should verbatim reproduce each word or words
capable of provoking him/her to commit
breach of peace or any other offence. The
background facts, circumstances, the
occasion, the manner in which the offending
words are used, the person 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. In view of aforesaid legal position, this Court
has no hesitation in quashing the impugned F.I.R.,
8
2025:UHC:5807
charge sheet and also entire proceedings of aforesaid
Criminal Case pending before learned IIIrd A.C.J.M.,
Dehradun.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
Consequently, the impugned F.I.R. No.0166 of 2018
dated 20.07.2018 for the offences punishable under
Section 469 & 504 I.P.C. and Section 66 of Information
Technology (Amendment) Act, 2000, registered at Police
Station Dalanwala, District Dehradun stands quashed.
Furthermore, the impugned charge sheet dated
08.08.2018 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal
Case No.3851 of 2018 pending in the Court of learned
A.C.J.M., Dehradun, are hereby quashed.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
07.07.2025
Arpan
ARPAN
Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c048536
5445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e,
JAISWAL
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D45
4C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66,
cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2025.07.07 17:40:11 +05’30’
9
[ad_1]
Source link