DEBENDRA NATH PANDA Vs. HARE KRUSHNA PATNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing the order dated 29.2.1992 passed by the learned Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Puri in I.C.C. Case No. 15 of 1992.

(2.) THE opposite party Hare Krushna Patnaik, lodged a complaint before the Magistrate alleging inter alia that the present petitioners who figured as accused persons in the Court below had intentionally used abusive languages and has also assaulted him when he refused to meet the demands made by petitioner No. 2 for granting permission to the opposite party to visit his relations who were lodged in Puri Jail at the relevant time. According to the complainant, petitioner No. 2 was a Warder in Pun Jail while the petitioner No. 1 was the Jailor. It has been alleged that petitioner No. 2 demanded a sum of Rs. 42/ - for granting permission to the opposite party, the complainant in the trial Court to meet all the six accused persons who has been lodged in the jail on that day. The complainant alleged that as he could not meet their demands, he was assaulted and abusive languages were hurled against him by both the present petitioners.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel of both sides. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has taken me through the statement of the opposite party who was the complainant in the trial Court. On perusal of the initial statement, it appears that the present petitioners are said to have used some abusive languages and pushed the complainant away. The present petitioners have a different story to tell. The Jailor states that the opposite party entered into his official residence at about 2.40 p.m. on 21.1.1992 and asked for his permission to meet his relations who had been in the jail on that day. It is alleged further that when the jailor told the complainant that the Prison Welfare Officer was the competent authority to grant such permission to the complainant, the complainant did not go out of his bed room but shouted in loud voice and threatened him with dire consequences. The evidence adduced by the complainant has been scrutinised closely. It is noticed that no offence under Section 504, I.P.C., has been made out prima facie. It may be remembered that mere abuse unaccompanied by an intention to cause a breach of the peace or knowledge that the breach of the peace is likely does not come within Section 504, I.P.C. The facts, circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which they are used and the persons to whom they are addressed would determine the significance to be attached to the words used in each case. It is also to be noticed that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult or insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504, 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.