# Akanksha Katiyar & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 569
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-01
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 15986 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akanksha-katiyar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52239
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 482, - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 498-A, 342, 457, 448, 503,
504 & 506 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section - 13 - The Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 - Section - 3/4: - Application U/s 482 -
against criminal proceedings which are result of
a counter blast - on the basis of alleged
occurrence toll place on date of incident it was
the applicant -1 who lodged prompt FIR
wherein after investigation charge sheet has
been filed - whereas opposite party no. 4 has
filed a belated FIR wherein major allegations
with regards to section 457, 448 of IPC were
not found and the chargesheet was filed only
u/section 504, 506 IPC - court finds that, it is
not in dispute that relation between parties are
not cordial and criminal cases are pending
between parties as well as the husband of
applicant no. 1 has also filed an application
u/section 13 of the H.M. Act, - in order to make
out a case u/s section 504 and 506 OPC the
ingredients of criminal intimidation has to be
complied with i.e. threat caused by the applicant
must be with intention to cause alarm to that
person, or to cause that person to do any act
which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to do any act which that person is legally intitled
to do - however, part of allegation that
applicants have committed offence of lurking
premisses by night and house trespass was not
found to be provide - and the only allegation left
is to raise abusive language and cause of threat
- held, since ingredients of section 504, 506 IPC
are absolutely missing as well as not only FIR
was lodged after about 11 months, without any
explanation and are lodged as counter blast and
were
initiated
with
motive
for
wreaking
vengeance, therefore, in the light of law laid
down in case of 'A.M. Mohan's the present
criminal
proceedings
can
be
quashed
in
exercising inherent power of this court - hence,
Application is allowed - impugned orders as well
as entire proceedings of criminal case u/section
457, 448,506, IPC are quashed. (Para - 12, 13,
14, 15, 17, 19, 20)

Application u/s 482 Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Akanksha Katiyar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
569
[(1990) 3 SCC 682 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 71] ,
similar views were expressed in para 40 at
p. 705 of the report."

28. In the present case, the license to
the applicants of the firm was given under
the Act, 2006 with the condition that they
will conform to the Act, 2006 while
manufacturing or producing the sugandhit
supari, therefore, contention of counsel for
the applicants that the provision of the Act,
2006
will
not
be
applicable
while
manufacturing or producing sugandhit
supari, is misconceived.

29. In the present case, a sample of
supari, recovered from the manufacturing
unit of the applicants, had tobacco as an
additive for organo leptic purpose, which is
in violation of the Act, 2006 as the betel
nut or supari is a primary food as per
Section
3(1)(zk)
of
the
Act,
2006,
therefore, same is offence under the Act
2006 and the proceeding under the Act,
2006 against the applicants is absolutely
correct, and invocation of the COTPA,
2003 in the present case does not apply.

30. So far as the contention of learned
counsel
for
the
applicants
that
the
applicants
have
valid
licence
for
manufacturing supari (betel nut), even then,
provisions of the Act, 2006 have been
invoked against them, treating them as
manufacturers of the product of supari
without licence is concerned, same can be
raised at the time of framing of charges.

31. In view of the above analysis, this
Court finds that there is no illegality in the
impugned proceeding. Therefore, present
application fails, having no merit.

32. Accordingly, the application is
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 569
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 15986 of 2024

Akanksha Katiyar & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri
Abhay
Kumar,
Sri
Kumar
Ankit
Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Qazi Vakil Ahmad

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 482, - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Section 498-A, 342, 457, 448, 503,
504 & 506 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section - 13 - The Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 - Section - 3/4: - Application U/s 482 -
against criminal proceedings which are result of
a counter blast - on the basis of alleged
occurrence toll place on date of incident it was
the applicant -1 who lodged prompt FIR
wherein after investigation charge sheet has
been filed - whereas opposite party no. 4 has
filed a belated FIR wherein major allegations
with regards to section 457, 448 of IPC were
not found and the chargesheet was filed only
u/section 504, 506 IPC - court finds that, it is
not in dispute that relation between parties are
not cordial and criminal cases are pending
between parties as well as the husband of
applicant no. 1 has also filed an application
u/section 13 of the H.M. Act, - in order to make
out a case u/s section 504 and 506 OPC the
ingredients of criminal intimidation has to be
complied with i.e. threat caused by the applicant
must be with intention to cause alarm to that
person, or to cause that person to do any act
which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to do any act which that person is legally intitled
to do - however, part of allegation that
applicants have committed offence of lurking
premisses by night and house trespass was not
found to be provide - and the only allegation left
is to raise abusive language and cause of threat
- held, since ingredients of section 504, 506 IPC
are absolutely missing as well as not only FIR
was lodged after about 11 months, without any
explanation and are lodged as counter blast and
were
initiated
with
motive
for
wreaking
vengeance, therefore, in the light of law laid
down in case of 'A.M. Mohan's the present
criminal
proceedings
can
be
quashed
in
exercising inherent power of this court - hence,
Application is allowed - impugned orders as well
as entire proceedings of criminal case u/section
457, 448,506, IPC are quashed. (Para - 12, 13,
14, 15, 17, 19, 20)

Application u/s 482 Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. A. M. Mohan Vs St. Represented by SHO &
anr. (2024 SCC online SC 339),

2. Mohammad Wajid & anr.Vs St. of UP &
ors.(2023 INSC 683).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Applicant-1, Akanksha Katiyar, is
daughter-in-law
of
Complainant,
i.e.,
Opposite Party-4, whereas Applicants-2, 3
and 4 are close relatives of Applicant-1.

2. It is the case of applicants that
Applicant-1 has earlier lodged a FIR dated
30.05.2022 being Case Crime No. 0091 of
2022 at Police Station Shivrajpur, District
Kanpur Nagar against Opposite Party-4,
against her husband and his close relatives
for offence under Sections 498A, 504, 506
IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,
alleging that she got married with son of
Opposite Party-4 on 28.11.2019 and
thereafter she was suffered cruelty with
regard to demand of dowry and later on she
was sent back to her parental house.
Thereafter on persuasion in the month of
November, 2020 she was allowed to live in
a room at her matrimonial house but still
she suffered cruelty at the hands of her
husband, Opposite
Party-4
and
their
relatives.
In
aforesaid
FIR
after
investigation charge sheet has been filed
against said persons.

3. Sri Kumar Ankit Srivastava,
learned counsel for applicants submitted
that Applicant-1 still suffered atrocities and
on an occurrence occurred on 14.07.2022,
when she was not allowed to enter in her
matrimonial house and assaulted, another
FIR dated 14.07.2022 being Case Crime
No. 0500 of 2022 was lodged under
Section 498A, 342, 504, 506 IPC wherein
after investigation charge sheet has also
been filed against persons of Complainant
side.

4. Learned counsel further submitted
that in above background, in order to put
pressure on applicants, as a counter blast,
Opposite Party-4, i.e., mother-in-law of
Applicant-1 lodged FIR dated 10.06.2023,
i.e., after about 11 months, against
applicants being Case Crime No. 0198 of
2023, under Sections 457, 448 and 506 IPC
giving a different version of alleged
occurrence took place on 14.07.2022, on
which Applicant-1 has already lodged FIR.

5. Learned counsel further submitted
that
investigation
was
conducted
on
aforesaid FIR lodged against applicants
wherein also charge sheet was filed on
19.08.2023 but only under Section 504, 506
IPC on which Trial Court has took
cognizance by means of impugned order
dated 27.10.2023. The charge sheet and
7 All. Akanksha Katiyar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
571
summoning order is under challenge in
present application.

6. Learned counsel for applicants
submitted that present criminal proceedings
are result of a counter blast. On basis of
alleged
occurrence
took
place
on
14.07.2022 it was the Applicant-1, who
lodged
prompt
FIR
wherein
after
investigation charge sheet has been filed,
whereas Opposite Party-4 has filed a
belated FIR and as referred above, major
allegations with regard to Sections 457, 448
IPC were not found and charge sheet was
filed only under Sections 504, 506 IPC.
Learned counsel further referred statements
recorded
during
investigation
that
ingredients of offence under Sections 504,
506 IPC are not made out.

7. Per contra, learned AGA appearing
for
State
and
learned
counsel
for
Complainant submitted that on basis of
statements recorded during investigation
and medical report, Investigating Officer
has filed charge sheet under above referred
offences and Trial Court concerned has
rightly took cognizance, which does not
require any interference. They also referred
statements recorded during investigation.

8. Heard learned counsel for parties
and perused the material available on
record.

9.

Before
adverting
to
rival
submissions it would be relevant to refer
few paragraph of a recent judgement
passed by Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan
Vs. State Represented by SHO and
another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339:-

"9. The law with regard to
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482
of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and
criminal proceedings has been succinctly
summarized by this Court in the case of
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India
Limited1 after considering the earlier
precedents. It will be apposite to refer to
the following observations of this Court in
the said case, which read thus:

"12. The principles relating to
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure to
quash complaints and criminal proceedings
have been stated and reiterated by this
Court in several decisions. To mention a
few-Madhavrao
Jiwajirao
Scindia
v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [(1988)
1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan
Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal

Singh Gill [(1995) 6 SCC 194 :
1995 SCC (Cri) 1059], Central

Bureau
of
Investigation
v.
Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [(1996) 5
SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], State of
Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [(1996) 8
SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh
Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [(1999) 3 SCC
259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl
Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological
E. Ltd. [(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma
v. State of Bihar [(2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000
SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay
Singh [(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri)
19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.
v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [(2005) 1 SCC
122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. The principles,
relevant to our purpose are:

(i) A complaint can be quashed
where
the
allegations
made
in
the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety,
do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out the case alleged against the
accused. For this purpose, the complaint
572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has to be examined as a whole, but without
examining the merits of the allegations.
Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous
analysis of the material nor an assessment
of the reliability or genuineness of the
allegations in the complaint, is warranted
while examining prayer for quashing of a
complaint.

(ii) A complaint may also be
quashed where it is a clear abuse of the
process of the court, as when the criminal
proceeding is found to have been initiated
with mala fides/malice for wreaking
vengeance or to cause harm, or where the
allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable.

(iii) The power to quash shall not,
however, be used to stifle or scuttle a
legitimate prosecution. The power should
be used sparingly and with abundant
caution.

(iv) The complaint is not required
to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients
of the offence alleged. If the necessary
factual foundation is laid in the complaint,
merely on the ground that a few ingredients
have not been stated in detail, the
proceedings
should
not
be
quashed.
Quashing of the complaint is warranted
only where the complaint is so bereft of
even the basic facts which are absolutely
necessary for making out the offence.

(v) A given set of facts may make
out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely
a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as
also a criminal offence. A commercial
transaction or a contractual dispute, apart
from furnishing a cause of action for
seeking remedy in civil law, may also
involve a criminal offence. As the nature
and scope of a civil proceeding are
different from a criminal proceeding, the
mere fact that the complaint relates to a
commercial transaction or breach of
contract, for which a civil remedy is
available or has been availed, is not by
itself a ground to quash the criminal
proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a
criminal offence or not."

10. In order to appreciate the rival
submissions, it would be apposite to refer
Sections 503, 504 and 506 IPC as under:

"503. Criminal intimidation.-
Whoever threatens another with any injury
to his person, reputation or property, or to
the person or reputation of any one in
whom that person is interested, with intent
to cause alarm to that person, or to cause
that person to do any act which he is not
legally bound to do, or to omit to do any
act which that person is legally entitled to
do, as the means of avoiding the execution
of
such
threat,
commits
criminal
intimidation.

Explanation.- A threat to injure
the reputation of any deceased person in
whom the person threatened is interested,
is within this section.

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."

"506. Punishment for criminal
intimidation.-Whoever
commits,
the
offence of criminal intimidation shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both;

If threat be to cause death or
grievous hurt, etc.- And if the threat be to
7 All. Akanksha Katiyar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
573
cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause
the destruction of any property by fire, or
to cause an offence punishable with death
or
imprisonment
for
life,
or
with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a
woman,
shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, or
with fine, or with both."

11. Relevant part of FIR and
statements recorded during investigation
are reproduced hereinafter:

Relevant part of FIR

"प्राधथगिी की बहू आकािंक्षा अपिे
मायके िालो वपता लमलि कहटयार, मािं
बबबता कहटयार ि भाई आकाश कहटयार ि
अरािकतत्िो
की
मदद
से
हदिािंक
14.07.2022 राबत्र 11 बिे हथौड़े, आरी एिम
कटर आहद की मदद से प्राधथगिी के मकाि
का र्ेट का ताला काटकर घर के अन्दर
घुस र्यी। आकािंक्षा ि उसके घरिाले दबिंर्
ककस्म के व्यजक्त हैं जिन्होिे प्राधथगिी के
घर को हधथयािे की कोई कसर िहीिं छोड़ी
है। सारी घटिाओ के सीसीटीिी साक्ष्य
उपलब्ि हैं। जिसे विपक्षी उक्त लर्े
सीसीटीिी कैमरो को तोड़िे की हर समय
िमकी देती है कक ककसी हदि सारे
सीसीटीिी कैमरो को तोड़कर सभी लोर्ो की
हत्या करिा देंर्े। प्राचिानी ि उसके पररिार
को िेल सभििाने का हर सम्भि प्रयास
आकािंक्षा कदटयार द्िारा ककया िा रहा है।
उपरोक्र् सभी िाद िर्ामान में इलाहाबाद
उच्ि न्द्यायालय में वििारािीन है। उपरोक्त
आकािंक्षा कहटयार ि उसके मािं बाप, भाई से
प्राधथगिी ि उसके पनत ि पुत्र को िािमाल
का खतरा है। यह लोर् प्राधथगिी, उसके पनत
ि पुत्र शुभम की हत्या भी करा सकते है
र्िा मकान ि सम्पवत्त पर कब्िा भी कर
सकर्े हैं। अर्ः श्रीमान िी से विनम्र
प्रािाना है कक सम्पूणा प्रकरण की िािंि
ककसी
ननष्पक्ष
अचिकारी
से
कराकर
दोषीिनो के विरुद्ि मुकदमा पिंिीकृर् ककये
िाने का आदेश सम्बस्न्द्िर् िाने की पुसलस
को देने की कृपा करें र्ाकक प्राचिानी ि
उसके पनर् ि पुत्र को न्द्याय समल सके।"

Relevant part of statement of
Complainant

"प्राधथगिी की बहू आकािंक्षा अपिे
मायके िालो वपता लमलि कहटयार, मािं
बबबता कहटयार ि भाई आकाश कहटयार ि
अरािकतत्िो
की
मदद
से
हदिािंक
14.07.2022 राबत्र 11 बिे हथौड़े, आरी एिम
कटर आहद की मदद से प्राधथगिी के मकाि
का र्ेट का ताला काटकर घर के अन्दर
घुस र्यी। आकािंक्षा ि उसके घरिाले दबिंर्
ककस्म के व्यजक्त है जिन्होंिे प्राधथगिी के
घर को हधथयािे की कोई कसर िहीिं छोड़ी
है। सारी घटिाओिं के सीसीटीिी साक्ष्य
उपलब्ि हैं। जिसे विपक्षी उक्त लर्े
सीसीटीिी कैमरों को तोड़िे की हर समय
िमकी देती है कक ककसी हदि सारे
सीसीटीिी कैमरो को तोड़कर सभी लोर्ो की
हत्या करिा देंर्े। प्राधथगिी ि उसके पररिार
574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
को िेल लभििािे का हर सम्भि प्रयास
आकािंक्षा कहटयार द्िारा ककया िा रहा है।
उपरोक्र् सभी िाद िर्ामान में इलाहाबाद
उच्ि न्द्यायालय में वििारािीन है। उपरोक्र्
आकािंक्षा किंदटयार ि उसके मािं बाप, भाई से
प्राचिानी ि उसके पनर् ि पुत्र को िानमाल
का खर्रा है। यह लोर् प्राचिानी, उसके पनर्
ि पुत्र शुभम की हत्क्या भी करा सकर्े है
र्िा मकान ि सम्पवत्त पर कब्िा भी कर
सकर्े हैं। इस र्रह िाददनी मुकद मा ने
एिआईआर का समिान करर्े हुए अपने
बयान अिंककर् कराये।"

Relevant part of statement of
Husband of Complainant

"हदिािंक 14.07.22 को आकािंक्षा
घर से पेशी के ललए माििीय न्यायालय
र्ई थी िब शाम को आई तो हम लोर्
दरिािा बिंद करके कहीिं र्ए हुए थे तब
आकािंक्षा द्िारा दरिािा तोडफोड कर अिंदर
कमरे में आई थी उस समय आकािंक्षा के
भाई आकाश कहटयार, माता बबीता कहटयार,
वपता लमलि कहटयार भी मौके पर मौिूद
थे िब हम लोर्ों िापस आये तथा एतराि
ककया तो सभी लोर्ों िे लमलकर र्ाली
र्लौि ि िाि से मारिे की िमकी देिे
लर्े तथा कहिे लर्े कक मेरी लड़की यही
रहेंर्ी यहािं से तभी िाएर्ी िब तुम लोर्ों
को मार देर्ी तब से आकािंक्षा कहटयार घर
की दूसरी मिंजिल पर रह रही हैं तथा आए
हदि र्ाली र्लौि ि िाि से मारिे की
िमकी दे रही है कक हम इस घर से कभी
निकलेंर्े िहीिं। आकािंक्षा के भाई आकाश
कहटयार माता बबीता कहटयार तथा लमलि
कहटहार आकािंक्षा से लमलिे के बहािे आते
हैं तथा हम लोर्ों को र्ाली र्लौि ि िाि
से मारिे की िमकी देते रहते हैं। इस
प्रकार से अपिा बयाि दे रहे है।"

Relevant part of statement of
Son of Complainant, i.e., Husband of
Applicant-1

"ददनािंक 14.07.22 को आकािंक्षा
घर से न्द्यायालय में मुकदमे के सिंबिंि में
र्यी िी िापस िब घर आयी र्ो हम लोर्
घर पर नहीिं िे र्ब आकािंक्षा द्िारा दरिािा
को िादकर घर के अन्द्दर आ र्यी िी र्िा
र्ेट में र्ोड िोड की र्ई िी। िब मेरे
मम्मी पापा ने एर्राि ककया र्ब आकािंक्षा
कदटयार द्िारा मम्मी पापा ि मुझे र्ाली
देर्े हुए िान माल की िमकी देने लर्ी
िी। आकािंक्षा के भाई आकाश कदटयार
मार्ा बबीर्ा कदटयार ि वपर्ा समलन
कदटयार भी मौके पर र्ाली र्लौि र्िा
िमकी दे रहे िे आकािंक्षा की मािं बबीर्ा
कदटयार वपर्ा समलन कदटयार र्िा भाई
आकाश कदटयार आए ददन मेरे घर पर
आकािंक्षा के समलने के बहाने आर्े हैं र्िा
हम लोर्ों को र्ाली र्लौि देर्े हुए
िानमाल की िमकी देर्े रहर्े हैं श्रीमान
िी मुझे उम्मीद है कक आकािंक्षा अपने
पररिार के साि समलकर कोई बडी घटना
घदटर् कर सकर्ी है र्िा हम लोर्ों को
िान माल का नुकसान हो सकर्ा है।"
7 All. Akanksha Katiyar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
575

(Emphasis supplied)

12. It is not in dispute that relation
between parties are not cordial and criminal
cases are pending between parties as well
as husband of Applicant-1 has also filed an
application under Section 13 of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.

13. Before considering, whether it is a
fit case to quash criminal proceedings, it
would be relevant to mention some part of
a recent judgment passed by Supreme
Court in Mohammad Wajid and another
vs. State of U.P. and others, 2023 INSC
683 as under:

"24. An offence under Section
503 has following essentials:-

1) Threatening a person with any
injury;

(i) to his person, reputation or
property; or

(ii) to the person, or reputation of
any one in whom that person is interested.

2) The threat must be with intent;

(i) to cause alarm to that person;
or

(ii) to cause that person to do any
act which he is not legally bound to do as
the means of avoiding the execution of such
threat; or

(iii) to cause that person to omit
to do any act which that person is legally
entitled to do as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat.

25. Section 504 of the 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
selfcontrol or having been subjected to
abject terror by the offender. 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.

26. 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 circumstances of that
576 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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,
(1902) 4 Bom LR 78, a Division Bench of
the Bombay High Court pointed out that:-

"To constitute an offence under
Section 504, I.P.C. 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."

27. A bare perusal of Section 506
of the IPC makes it clear that a part of it
relates to criminal intimidation. Before an
offence of criminal intimidation is made
out, it must be established that the accused
had an intention to cause alarm to the
complainant."

14. As referred above, it is not in
dispute that there are matrimonial dispute
between Applicant-1 and her husband and
other relatives. Petition of divorce is also
pending. Applicant-1 has filed a prompt FIR
of alleged occurrence took place on
14.07.2022 against her husband, Opposite
Party-4 and their relatives wherein after
investigation charge sheet has been filed,
whereas Opposite Party-4 has lodged FIR of
the same occurrence giving a different
version with a delay of almost 11 months.
Initially FIR was filed under Sections 457,
448
and
506
IPC,
however,
after
investigation allegation qua to offence under
Sections 457 IPC (Lurking house trespass or
house-breaking by night in order to commit
offence punishable with imprisonment) and
448 IPC (Punishment for house trespass)
were not found true and charge sheet was
filed only under Sections 504, 506 IPC.

15. In order to consider rival
submissions,
whether
ingredients
of
Sections 504, 506 IPC are satisfied or not, I
have carefully perused the contents of
statements recorded during investigation.

16. As referred above, statements of
witnesses are verbatim that applicants after
breaking lock of house entered inside and
when Complainant side reached and it was
objected, accused-applicants abused them
and extended threat to cause loss to life and
such act was repeated also.

17. As referred in Mohammad
Wajid (supra) in order to make out a case
under Section 506 IPC the ingredients of
criminal intimidation as mentioned in
Section 503 IPC has to be complied with,
i.e., the threat caused by applicant must be
with intent to cause alarm to that person, or
to cause that person to do any act which he
is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do
any act which that person is legally entitled
to do. However, as referred above, part of
allegation that applicants have committed
offence of lurking premises by night and
house trespass was not found to be proved.
Therefore, the only allegation left is to raise
abusive
language
and
cause
threat.
However, statements are much short of
ingredients that applicants had an intention
to cause alarm to Complainant side. Nature
of abusive language is not specific.
Presence of Applicant-1 at the house was
natural and there is no evidence that there
was intent. As such ingredients of Section
503 IPC as punishable under Section 506
IPC are not made out.

18. So far as allegation under Section
504 IPC is concerned, as referred in
Mohammad Wajid (supra) that 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
7 All. Praveen Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
577
being likely to incite the person insulted to
commit a breach of the peace of an offence
and as referred above even the nature of
abusive language is not on record. There
is no statement to the effect that alleged
abusive language used by applicants was
sufficient to insult the Complainant side
to commit a breach of peace of an
offence. As such, in the present case,
even ingredients of Section 504 IPC are
absolutely missing.

19. In aforesaid circumstances, since
ingredients of Sections 504, 506 IPC are
absolutely missing as well as not only FIR
was lodged after about 11 months, without
any explanation but on basis of above
referred facts present proceedings are
counter blast and were initiated with
motive for wreaking vengeance, therefore,
in the light of A.M. Mohan (supra), it is a
fit case where in exercise of inherent power
present
criminal
proceedings
can
be
quashed.

20. In the result, application is
allowed. Impugned charge sheet dated
19.08.2023, under Sections 504, 506 IPC,
summoning/
cognizance
order
dated
27.10.2023 as well as entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 148979 of 2023 (State
vs. Akanksha Katiyar and others), arising
out of Case Crime No. 198 of 2023, under
Sections 457, 448, 506 IPC, Police Station
Barra, District Kanpur Nagar, are hereby
quashed.

21. Registrar (Compliance) to take
steps.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 577
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2024

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 16936 of 2024

Praveen Kumar Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Praveen Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section - 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323,
504 & 506: - Applications u/s 482 - during an
inspection which was conducted by the Govt.
officials in compliance of the direction issued by
this court in a Civil Misc. Writ Petition, against
village Pradhan in respect of a complaint moved
by one of the applicants - allegedly, there were
some obstructions were made and some
struggle took place due to which inspection was
not completed - resulted two respective FIRs
were lodged - first was lodged by Applicant-1
against five named accused including Pradhan
Pati (opposite party no. 2) - and second cross
FIR was lodged by the said Pradhan Pati against
the applicant & 2 others person - investigation
- chargesheet - cognizance order - summoning
order - proceeding which was initiated against
the applicants the present application is filed -
court finds that, according to version of both
FIRs, alleged incidence took place in presence of
nodal officer, who was inspecting Pond but
respective investigation officers have not took
endeavour even to record their St.ments to
verify the allegations - since inspection was
conducted in pursuance of an order passed by
this Court, therefore it was an duty of St. to
maintain peace and law & order - they have
miserably failed to do so - further investigation
officer was also failed to submit any medical
examination report - held, it appears that cross
version is false case and injury report of
Pradhan Pati was also manipulated which is
clearly evident from report of medical board -
Pradhan Pati, is an influential person and
investigation of present case was conducted