1. This application in revision was filed by Shri Devi Ram and his son Shri Mian Ram. The former appli- cant has since died and his name has been expunged from the array of parties.
2. A complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioner and his since deceased father for offences .Under Sections 504, 447 and 500 of IPC on the allegations that they wanted to pass by the house of the respondent who restrained them from doing so and they abused him in the name of his mother and sister.
3. The learned Magistrate who was. trying the case framed a charge Under Section 504 of IPC only, la support of the petition it has been contended that neither evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent nor the charge framed by the learned Magistrate indicated the terms of we abuses alleged to have been hurled by the petitioner and his since deceased father and as such a charge could not the framed for the offence Under Section 504 of I. P, C. that Section reads as below:
Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likaty that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punishes with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
4. It will have been noticed that the essential ingredients of the offence are (1) to intentionally insult any person' (2) to provoke such 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.
5. In order to come to a conclusion as to whether the abuses hurled were such as to provoke another person and to cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, it is necessary to know as to what were u 'actual words which were uttered. In the case of In re, K. Venkataratnam A.I.R. 1948 Mad 9(2), it was held that la order to decide whether the abusive words used moved to intentional insult or not it was necessary to know what those words were. In the case of Shamlal Bania v. The King : AIR1952Cal288 , it was held that in the absence of all mention either in the charge when a charge is tram--ed or in the record of evidence, as to what words were used it is not possible for the High Court in revision to decide 'Whether the words used indicated the intention or knowledge requisite for an offence Under Section 504 of I. P. u. and the conviction for such offence cannot be maintained. In the case of Mahammad Sabed Ali v. Thulesvar Borah A.I.R. 1955 Assam 211, mere abuse or even hurling of intentional insults and thereby causing provocation were not held to be sufficient to constitute an offence Under Section ;5Q4 of IPC
6. In the instant case the evidence led on behalf of the respondent or the charge framed by the learned Magistrate did not specify the actual words alleged to we been used by the petitioner and his since deceased father in abusing the respondent and it could not, therefore, be said that the abuses were likely to provoke the respondent land cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The respondent has stated that he was not agitated or excited when he was abused and on the evidence on record the learned Magistrate was not justified in framing charge Under Section 504 of IPC
7. On behalf of the respondent my attention his been invited to the following observations made by Chowdbry,. J. C. in the case of Dains Ram v. The State A.I.R. 1951 Hint Pra 56;
The revisional powers of the H. C. can be invoked at the stage of the trial when a charge has been fram ed against the accused. At the same time, invocation of such powers at an interlocutory stage, or during the pendency of the proceedings in the trial Court cannot be made m substitute for the exercise of the right of appeal or revision which an aggrieved party always has after due termination of those proceedings. A High Court is therefore reluctant to interfere in a case which has not yet been completed in the trial Court and it will do so only in exceptional cases, such as where a person is being harassed by .an illegal prosecution or where there is some manifest and patent injustice apparent on the face of the proceedings .calling for prompt redress, or where the evidence on record for the prosecution clearly does not justify a charge of any offence, or where the trial is on the face of it an abuse of the process of the Court.
8. The scope of Section 561-A of Cr.PC has recently been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab : 1960CriLJ1239 , and some of the cases where the inherent jurisdiction to (quash proceedings can and should be exercised have been categorised. The categories germane to the matter in hand are (ii) and (iii). They are as below:
(ii) Where the allegations in the First Information Report for the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) Where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either .no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
9. The complaint in the instant case did not disclose the actual words used by the petitioner and his since deceased father in abusing the complainant and the statement made by the complainant disclosed that he was not promoted when abuses were hurled at him. The instant case thus falls within the (ii) and the (iii) categories referred to above and within the exceptional circumstances set out in the 4951 Himachal Pradesh case supra. The charge framed (against the petitioner must, therefore, be quashed.
10. I, therefore, accept the petition in revision and quash the charge framed by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner for an offence Under Section 504 of IPC