Summary
The Supreme Court quashed a chargesheet under Sections 269, 270 and 504 IPC against the Officiating Director of an institute who had reprimanded a subordinate doctor in his chamber. The allegation of an inadequate supply of PPE kits was conjectural and refuted by witnesses, and a superior's admonition on matters of workplace discipline and duties is not an intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace.
Issues
- Whether the allegations in the chargesheet, taken at face value, disclosed the ingredients of Sections 269 and 270 IPC on the basis of an alleged failure to maintain an adequate supply of PPE kits and gloves during Covid-19.
- Whether a superior's reprimand of a subordinate in a loud voice amounts to an intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace under Section 504 IPC.
- Whether the High Court erred in declining to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Provisions considered
- Sections 269 and 270, Indian Penal Code, 1860Held that the allegation that the appellant, as Director, failed to supply adequate PPE kits and gloves, so that infection was likely to spread, was purely conjectural and could not constitute these offences. Investigation witnesses had stated that there was no shortage of PPE kits, masks or sanitizers. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- Section 504, Indian Penal Code, 1860Laid down the ingredients: an intentional insult (actus reus), with the intention or knowledge that the provocation is likely to cause the person insulted to break the public peace or commit another offence (mens rea), judged by a reasonable-person test. Applying them, held that a verbal altercation and a superior's reprimand about workplace discipline did not satisfy the section. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Applying State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, held that proceedings may be quashed where the allegations in the FIR or chargesheet, taken at face value, do not prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences. The High Court's refusal to quash was set aside. (¶¶ 3, 14, 29, 30)
Held
- In a challenge to an FIR, chargesheet or cognizance order, the court has to see whether a bare reading of the chargesheet prima facie discloses the ingredients of the offences charged. If it does not, the constitutional courts may quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. (¶ 14)
- The allegation that the appellant failed to provide adequate PPE kits and gloves was conjectural and was refuted by witness statements recorded during the investigation. The Investigating Officer appeared to have been unduly influenced by the sensitivity of the Covid-19 situation, and the allegations could not constitute offences under Sections 269 and 270 IPC. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Section 504 IPC requires an intentional insult that gives provocation, together with the intention or knowledge that the provocation is likely to cause the person insulted to break the public peace or commit another offence. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence is not enough, and an insult without an intention to insult is not punishable. The insult must be capable of provoking a reasonable person, though it is immaterial whether the person insulted actually broke the peace. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- A senior's admonition cannot reasonably be treated as an intentional insult with intent to provoke under Section 504 IPC, provided it relates to matters incidental to the workplace, such as discipline and the discharge of duties. Holding otherwise could lead to gross misuse in workplaces and cripple the disciplinary atmosphere needed there. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29)
- On the facts, the appellant, as Officiating Director with pending complaints against the complainant's attendance and work, reprimanded her in a loud voice to restore discipline. At its highest this was a verbal spat, not an intentional insult, so the ingredients of the offences charged were absent. (¶¶ 16, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment dated 03.05.2024 set aside; chargesheet under Sections 269, 270 and 504 IPC and all proceedings before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, quashed.