Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that merely calling someone mad in a meeting of several persons does not constitute an offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (insult intended to provoke breach of peace). 

The bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Fiona Shirkhande Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (2013) wherein the top court emphasised that intentional insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.

Court pointed out that in the case at hand, the word uttered was an unintended spontaneous remark made in the prevailing atmosphere in the backdrop of several allegations, which were made against the accused and the society, of which she was the executive director.

Court held that the same could not be construed as of such degree so as to provoke any person to cause breach of peace.

"More often than not, in informal atmosphere such remarks may be carelessly thrown and may even form part of casual conversation having no criminal element for intentional causing of breach of peace. Any such stray statements made by any person, may be inappropriate, improper and rude, however, in my view, they do not bring the Act within the four corners of section 504 as defined in Indian Penal Code," the single judge bench opined. 

The court was dealing with a petition filed by one Judith Maria Monika Killer @ Sangeeta J.K under Article 227 challenging an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in 2021 summoning her under section 504 IPC and another order passed in 2023 affirming the earlier order. The petitioner also sought direction to quash the entire proceedings in the matter. 

The facts in brief were that a complaint was filed by one Dashrath Kumar Dixit against the petitioner who was the Executive Director of Kiran Society and ten others under Section 500 IPC. Dixit, who was an advocate by profession, alleged that since he worked for the welfare of handicapped weaker sections and human rights, when he found out that Kiran Society had been obtaining funds from foreign countries in the name of the welfare of handicapped people, but misusing those funds, he complained about the same to the District Magistrate, Varanasi.

The District Magistrate instituted an inquiry and District Divyangjan Sashaktikaran Adhikari was deputed as the  Inquiry Officer in the matter. Allegedly, when the Inquiry Officer called parties to have a meeting, the petitioner insulted the complainant. The complainant claimed that the petitioner had said, "This person is mad".

Before the high court, the petitioner argued that the complainant had filed a false and frivolous case against her. Her counsel pointed out the considerable delay in filing of the complaint as well as the fact that neither the complainant's statement under section 200 CrPC nor the witnesses's statements under section 202 CrPC established an offence under section 504 IPC.

The counsel further submitted that there was nothing to suggest that the complainant was intentionally insulted or provoked intending and knowing that such act will cause him to break the public peace.

The high court held that in light of the facts of the case, prima facie no offence under section 504 IPC was made out. "Definitely what may be the impact of spoken words, can only be inferred from the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case. In the case in hand, the remark was inappropriate or even rude but circumstances prima facie do not establish that it was intended to provoke the person to cause breach of peace. The courts concerned failed to apply law in correct perspective," the high court held. 

Case Title: Judith Maria Monika Killer @ Sangeeta J.K. v.  State of U.P. and Another