The Allahabad High Court recently held that mere use of abusive language or being discourteous or rude to the opponent would not by itself amount to any intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
While dealing with an application under Section 482 CrPC challenging the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate in a complaint case registered under sections 379, 504, and 506 of the IPC, the bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan said, “It has to be shown that the nature of abusive language or insult is such as is likely to insult a person or to commit breach of peace or commit an offence.”
The court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohammad Wajid and another Vs State of UP (2023), where the top court had held that mere abuse may not come within the purview of the Section 504 IPC.
The high court noted that in the case at hand, the complaint did not state the nature of abusive language used by the accused persons and allegations in this respect were wholly vague in nature.
“…without specification then it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code are attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case,” the court said while holding that the court concerned had incorrectly summoned the accused under Section 504 IPC.
Accordingly, it partly allowed the application and set aside the summoning order in respect of Section 504 IPC. However, it directed the court concerned to proceed with the case under Sections 379 (punishment for theft) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of IPC.
In 2016, the complainant reported the disappearance of his goat, which had been tied outside his village residence. According to his neighbours, the goat had been stolen. Subsequently, the complainant and his brother visited the accused’s residence, where they discovered the missing goat. Allegedly, upon confronting the accused individuals, the complainant faced verbal abuse and threats. He also claimed that the accused warned him against returning to their house to retrieve the goat, threatening him with harm, including the possibility of being killed.
The statements of the complainant and the witnesses were recorded by the police and in view of the same, the Judicial Magistrate had passed the impugned summoning order.
