Summary
An insurance surveyor was discharged from offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC because the complaint, even accepted at face value, did not establish their ingredients. Merely alleging filthy abuse and an attempted assault during a visit, with one companion carrying a revolver, did not supply the necessary provocation or intended alarm on this pleading. The Court distinguished judicial scrutiny of a prima facie case from an impermissible mini-trial and left the insurance claim merits untouched.
Issues
- Whether the allegations established intentional insult provoking breach of peace or criminal intimidation.
- What scrutiny was permissible at discharge.
Provisions considered
- Sections 503, 504 and 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860Required the specified threat and intent for criminal intimidation, and intentional insult with the requisite provocation and intent or knowledge for Section 504; the complaint fell short. (¶ 21–28)
Held
- At discharge the court had to apply its judicial mind to whether a case for trial existed, with limited sifting of material rather than mechanically accepting prosecution requests or conducting a mini-trial. (¶ 14–19)
- Section 504 required intentional insult giving provocation with intent or knowledge of likely breach of peace or another offence. The bare abuse allegation did not establish those elements on the complaint as framed. (¶¶ 23, 26)
- Criminal intimidation required a qualifying threat with intent to cause alarm or compel an act or omission of the statutory kind. The complaint’s allegations, read at face value, did not establish all those ingredients. (¶ 24–28)
- The Court confined its decision to discharge under Sections 504 and 506 and did not adjudicate the complainant’s underlying fire-insurance claim. (¶¶ 9, 28–29)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court judgment and Magistrate’s refusal of discharge set aside; appellant discharged from the offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC.