T. Vanamamalai and others vs M. Sivaramakrishnan

Padmini Jesudurai, J.—The petitioners, who are facing trial before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate Nanguneri in C.C. 32 of 1987 for an offence under S. 504, I.P.C., on a private complaint instituted by the respondent herein, invoke the inherent powers of this Court to quash the above proceedings.

The facts briefly are : The respondent is the Manager in Sundaram Textiles, Nanguneri, which is a private limited company engaged in the manufacture of textiles. The petitioners are employees in the above concern. There is a dispute between the Management and the employees. The averment in the complaint is that on 18th January, 1987 at about 12 noon; the first petitioner hung up a placard on a neem tree, in front of the respondent''s premises, while petitioners 2 to 4 lifted the placard and gave it to him. The placard contained statements against the Management. The respondent, on reading the same, was provoked and immediately took his camera and took photographs of the placard and the recitals therein. The petitioners with the intention of insulting the respondent and thereby provoking him and the Management to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, had put up the above placard and therefore committed an offence punishable under S. 504, I.P.C. The complaint was taken on file as C.C. 32 of 1984 for an offence under S. 504, I.P.C., against the four petitioners. The above proceedings are sought to be quashed by the petitioners.

Thiru N.T. Vanamamalai, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the averments in the complaint as also in the sworn statement, even if taken to be true, do not disclose an offence under S. 504, I.P.C and that, therefore, the continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, amounted to sheer abuse of the process of (court and this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers has to quash the same. Learned Counsel also placed reliance upon certain decisions of this Court, which I shall refer to presently.

Per contra, Thiru N.T. Natarajan Learned Counsel for the respondent, contended that the recitals in the placard were likely to provoke the workers belonging to I.N.T.U.C. Union into breaking the public peace or committing any other offence and, though the complaint did not indicate in so many words the above effect of the placard, still the same could be inferred, since an employee belonging to I.N.T.U C, was cited as a witness in the complaint and the Court before quashing proceedings, on the ground of absence of allegations should consider not only the averments in the complaint and in the sworn statement, but also the evidence that is likely to be forthcoming through the prosecution witnesses.

The short question that revolves for consideration is whether the complaint and the sworn statement disclose an offence under S. 504, I.P.C.

The recitals in the placard would be relevant for a decision of the above question.

The respondent has stated that, as soon as he read the statement in the above placard, he became angry and immediately brought his camera and took photographs of the placard. It is on the above facts that it is averred in the complaint that the petitioners had intentionally insulted the respondent and the T.V.S. Management intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will prompt them, to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, thereby attracting S. 504, I.P.C.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while elaborating upon the recitals in the placard, stated that all that was found in the placard was a statement that the T.V.S. Mill Management was barbaric and accused them of taking revenge on the A I.T.U.C. workers for having vehemently put forward their case before the Textiles Tribunal and thereby thwarting the attempts of the Management not to implement the new settlement regarding be workload and also accusing the management of instigating to cut the flags of A I.T.U.C and the flags of others and finally requesting the police to take proper action. This merely amounted to a concrete criticism of certain acts of the Management.

For an offence under S. 514, I.P.C, the following ingredients have to be proved:--

(i) Intentional insult;

(ii) The insult must be such as to give pro-vocation to the persons insulted;

(iii) The intention that such provocation would cause or knowledge that such provocation was likely to cause the persons so insulted to break the peace or to commit any other offence.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in Mohammed Ibrahim Maracayar v. Ismail Maracayar 62 L.W. 287 : 1949 M.W.N. (Crl.) 91, where Somasundaram, J., held that a letter written by a father to his daughter that he bad only old and torn shoes and had placed orders for better ones and that, as soon as he got the better ones, he would send them over to her and her husband, did not fall under S. 504, I.P.C., since, though the letter undoubtedly constituted an insult to the daughter and her husband, it was doubtful whether the father intended to provoke or knew that the insult was likely to provoke either his daughter or her husband to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. Reference was made to an earlier decision of this Court in Subbiah v. Venkatasubbamma 55 L.W. 421 : 1942 M.W.N. (Crl.) 437, wherein Horwill, J., held that mere insult, however gross it may be, would not be sufficient to bring the case within the provisions of S. 504, I.P.C.

In a later decision of this Court in Dr. Miss M. Koshi v. Vincent 1978 L.W. (Crl.) 144, Natarajan, J., referred to an earlier decision of the Bombay High Court in Philip Rangel Vs. Emperor, , wherein Beaumont, C.J., speaking for the Division Bench held that the words ''you damn bloody bastards and cads'' would not come under S. 504, I.P.C, and something more than mere vulgar abuse was necessary. On the facts of that particular case, Natarajan, J., held that mere derogatory remark or even words of abuse would not by themselves constitute intentional insult as contemplated under S. 504, I P.C., and that decrying a person or ridiculing him would not also amount to intentional insult.

In the instant case, the Management has been criticised for vehemently opposing the implementation of the workload agreement and has been accused of taking revenge on the A.I.T.U.C. workers and cutting the flag post. The activities of the Management have been described as barbaric and atrocious and the police were requested to take proper action. These words could never be construed as intentionally insulting either the respondent or the Management and thereby provoking either of them to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. Even in the complaint all that is stated is that on reading the placard, the respondent immediately took out a camera and took photographs. Nothing more has been done. Nor could the above passage provoke either the management or the respondent to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The averments in the complaint and the sworn statement, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute an offence under S. 504, I.P.C.

The Supreme Court, under such circumstances, has held in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab 1960 M.L.J. (Crl.) 21, as follows:

Cases may also arise where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged, in such cases, no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information report to decide whether the offence, alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases, it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against the accused person.

When this Court finds that the allegations in the complaint and in the sworn statement, even if taken at their face value do not constitute an offence, it is cot open to this Court to consider what evidence is likely to be forthcoming during the trial. The material on the basis of which a decision has to be taken in the ease of a private complaint, would be the complaint and the statement of any witness recorded under S. 200, Crl.P.C., and any documents that are produced along with the complaint. Considered thus, it is obvious that an offence under S. 504, I.P.C, is not made out. Continuance of the criminal proceedings would therefore amount to abuse of the process of law, which this Court under its inherent powers is bound to prevent.

In the result, the petition is ordered and the proceedings in C.C. 32 of 1987 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Nanguneri, are hereby quashed.