For the offense U/S 504 IPC, the insult must provoke the plaintiff to disturb the public peace or to commit an offence: J&K High Court

The court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasized the need for specific allegations to support a charge under Section 504 IPC, which deals with willful insult intended to provoke a disturbance of the peace.

Justice Javed Iqbal Wanimaking a decision, noted “For the offense provided for in Article 504, it is mandatory that the offense of the accused provokes the complainant, thereby leading to a disturbance of the peace or the commission of an offence. In addition, the complaint must specify the exact words used to offend.” The Court emphasized that a simple allegation of insult without detailing the language or context does not meet the statutory requirements under Section 504.

The applicant alleged that the accused had borrowed a substantial amount and later refused to pay it back, instead becoming aggressive and threatening dire consequences. However, the court found that the complaint did not contain the information necessary to establish a charge of criminal intimidation under section 506.

Referring to the essential elements of the section, the court noted that “for criminal intimidation to be justified, there must be a real threat that goes beyond mere words or disagreement.” The court decided that the absence of such elements prevents the prosecution of the accused under Article 506.

Regarding the charge under Section 420 IPC dealing with cheating and dishonest inducement, the court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Ors vs. State of Bihar and Anr and Vesa Holdings Private Limited and another vs. State of Kerala and Ors, emphasizing the principle that the intent to mislead must be present at the inception of the transaction.

in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Vermait was held that “For a person to be guilty of fraud, it is necessary to prove that he had fraudulent or dishonest intent when making the promise.” Likewise in Vesa HoldingsThe court held that the offense of deception cannot arise from the mere failure to perform a subsequent obligation, unless there was an initial intent to deceive. Applying this reasoning, the High Court concluded that the complaint lacked allegations sufficient to infer an original intent to defraud, thereby quashing the section 420 charge.

In addition, the court referred to the remarks of the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors on the scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, emphasizing that the High Court can quash the proceedings if it appears to be an abuse of process or if its continuance would prejudice the interests of justice.

In the end, the High Court set aside the appeal and the subsequent proceedings, including the orders of the trial court, finding that the requirements for the application of the alleged sections of the IPC had not been met. The Court reiterated that legal proceedings must be based on clear and substantiated allegations, stressing that justice trumps the simple application of the law.

Case Name: Muhammad Shafi Wani vs. Muhammad Sultan Bhat

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 300

Click here to read/download the solution