AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Somasundaram, J.—The accused is the petitioner herein. The petition is to quash the proceedings in C. O, No. 2828 of 1948 on the file of
the Special Honorary Magistrate of Egmore .
The complainant is the daughter of the petitioner herein. There were some misunderstanding between her husband and her father over some
money transaction and when a claim was made for the return of the moneys alleged to have been advanced by the complainant, the petitioner
herein wrote a letter to his daughter in which he has stated that as he has got only old and torn shoes he has placed an order for better ones and
that as soon as he gets them he will send them over to her and her husband. He also stated that old ones may not be satisfactory and therefore he
was arranging to send new shoes. On this, the complainant''s husband as her power of attorney agent, has filed the complaint against the petitioner
for an offence u/s 504, Penal Code.
The petitioner has filed this revision petition to quash the proceedings on the ground that prima facie the contents of his letter to his daughter
would not constitute an offence u/s 604, Penal Code. This letter was written from Vellore where the petitioner resides to his daughter at Madras.
Section 504, Penal Code runs as follows :
Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, Intending of 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.
Now the question is whether the letter written from Vellore to the daughter in Madras falls within the scope of the section. It is bad taste for the
father to write such a letter to his daughter. That the letter undoubtedly constituted an insult to the daughter or her husband, cannot be disputed.
But it is doubtful that the petitioner intended or knew it to be likely that the insult will provoke either his daughter or her husband, to break the
public peace or to commit any other offence. To break the public peace the complainant or her husband will have to leave his or her house, go to
the railway station, and take a train, go to Vellore and go to the house of the petitioner and if by chance he is absent, wait for him and then assault
him. This is not the kind of breach of peace that is contemplated in the section. The likelihood of the breach of the peace must be immediately after
the provocation or so soon afterwards that it must form part of res gestae.
This section, as pointed out by Horwill J., in Subbiah v. Venhatasubbamma 1942 M. W. N. Cr. 105 : A. I. R 1942 Mad. 672, is often misused
and this is one of those cases where the observation of Horwill J, applies with great force. As pointed out in that judgment, the lower Courts often
think that a mere insult, however gross it may be, is sufficient to bring the case Within the provisions of 8. 504, Penal Code. That it is not so has
been laid down in Subbiah v. Venhatasubbamma, 1942 M. w, N. Cr. 105 : A. I. R 1942 Mad. 672.
Apart from this, this is a case in which the Magistrate should have applied the principle of Section 95 , Penal Code. This is a domestic quarrel
between the father and the daughter and the daughter should never have taken this to a criminal Court. The petition is allowed and the proceedings
in C. O. No, 2328 of 1948 in the lower Court are quashed.