Under Sec 504 IPC: Mere use of abusive language does not amount to intentional insult: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that the mere use of abusive language or being rude or rude to an opponent does not in itself amount to any intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Justice Vikram D Chauhan said while disposing of an application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC challenging the summons order passed by the Judicial Magistrate in a complaint case registered under Sections 379, 504 and 506 of the ICC. : “It must be shown that the abusive language or insult was of a nature likely to be insulting to another person, a breach of the peace or criminal.”

The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohammad Wajid and another Vs State of UP (2023), wherein the Supreme Court held that mere abuse may not fall within the ambit of Section 504 of IPC.

The High Court noted that in the present case, the complaint did not state the nature of the abusive language used by the accused and the allegations in this regard were entirely vague in nature.

“…without specificity, the provisions of Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case,” the court said while holding that the court concerned erred in summoning the accused under Section 504 of the IPC.

Accordingly, it partially allowed the application and quashed the summons order under Section 504 of the IPC. However, it directed the court concerned to continue hearing the case under Sections 379 (punishment for theft) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

case

In 2016, the complainant reported the disappearance of his goat, which was tethered outside his village home. According to his neighbor, the goat was stolen. The complainant and his brother subsequently visited the defendant’s residence, where they discovered the missing goat. The complainant was allegedly verbally abused and threatened during a confrontation with the accused. He also claimed that the defendant warned him not to return to his home to retrieve the goat and threatened him with harm, including possibly being killed.

The police had recorded the statements of the complainant and witnesses and in view of this, the judicial magistrate passed the impugned summons.