B.V. RAM KUMARversusSTATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER

                  [2025] 3 S.C.R. 48 : 2025 INSC 194

                           B.V. Ram Kumar
                                  v.
                   State of Telangana and Another
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2025)
                              10 February 2025
              [Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether senior’s admonition can be attributed to mean an
       ‘intentional insult with the intent to provoke’ within the means of
       s.504, Penal Code, 1860.

                                  Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.269, 270 and 504 – On 02.02.2022,
       appellant-Officiating Director of Institute called respondent
       no.2-complainant to his chamber and reprimanded her in a
       high-pitched voice for having filed complaints against him to
       the higher authority – Complainant filed FIR against appellant
       u/ss.269, 270 and 504, IPC – Trial Court took cognizance of the
       offences and summoned the appellant – Appellant preferred
       criminal petition u/s.482, CrPC and sought quashing of
       proceedings – Criminal petition was dismissed by the High
       Court – Correctness:
       Held: There is a reasonable expectation on the part of a person,
       who caters to the affairs at the helm, that his juniors should
       attend to the professional affairs of the Institute (workplace) with
       utmost sincerity and dedication – The circumstances that existed
       during the times of Covid-19 pandemic and the pressure on the
       medical professionals was multiplied manifold, therefore, it was
       reasonable for the appellant to contemplate similar expectations
       from his juniors/associates – The intention behind this was simply
       to control the perceived indiscipline of the subordinates who were
       alleged to be shirking from the performance of their duties and
       were displaying lethargic, lackadaisical and laid-back approach
       towards the profession – In the facts and circumstances of the
       present case, appellant’s act of reprimanding the complainant


* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                               49

           B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and Another


     cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated to be an ‘intentional
     insult’ meted out to the complainant so as to provoke her to
     commit breach of peace or any other offence – If the interpretation
     advanced from the side of prosecution and the complainant is
     accepted, it may lead to gross misuse of liberty in workplaces –
     Therefore, senior’s admonition cannot be reasonably attributed to
     mean an ‘intentional insult with the intent to provoke’ within the
     means of Section 504, IPC, provided that the admonition relates
     to the matters incidental to the workplace covering discipline
     and the discharge of duties therein – The statements recorded
     by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, it
     is discernible that the appellant has been roped in the present
     criminal proceedings on account of his strict demeanour and the
     tendency to maintain discipline which is reasonably expected of
     individuals who serve a noble vocation of a medical profession
     while also serving as the head of the Institution during the difficult
     time of Covid-19 pandemic – No existence of the necessary
     ingredients constituting the offences applied in the chargesheet
     so as to allow further prosecution of the appellant and hence, it
     is a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against
     the appellant. [Paras 26, 27, 28, 29]

     Penal Code, 1860 – s.504 – Intentional insult with intent to
     provoke breach of peace:
     Held: Section 504, IPC consists of two parts – Firstly, the actus
     reus being the intentional insult which gives rise to the provocation –
     Secondly, the mens rea, i.e., the intention or knowledge on the
     part of the accused that such intentional provocation is likely to
     cause the person insulted to break public peace or commit any
     other offence – The animus nocendi in Section 504, IPC is that
     the accused should ‘intentionally insult’ the other person with the
     intention or knowledge that the provocation caused by such insult
     is likely to result in the commission of breach of public peace or
     any other offence by the person who has been so insulted – The
     offence is said to be complete once the accused person makes
     ‘intentional insult’ with the aforesaid mens rea – Hence, intention
     or knowledge on the part of accused person that his actions of
     making ‘intentional insult’ have the potential to provoke the person
     insulted is sine qua non for the commission of the offence under
     Section 504, IPC. [Paras 22, 23]
50                                                          [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


                              Case Law Cited
      State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992] 3 Supp. SCR 735 : (1992) 1
      Supp. SCC 335; Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra [2013]
      9 SCR 240 : (2013) 14 SCC 44; Mohammad Wajid v. State of
      U.P. [2023] 11 SCR 313 : 2023 SCC Online SC 951 – relied on.

                                List of Acts
      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.

                             List of Keywords
      Reasonable expectation; Covid-19 pandemic; Intentional insult;
      Breach of peace; Senior’s admonition; Section 504 of Penal Code,
      1860.

                            Case Arising From
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      654 of 2025
      From the Judgment and Order dated 03.05.2024 of the High Court
      for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRP No. 11653 of 2022

                         Appearances for Parties
      Challa Kodanrama, Sr. Adv., Hitendra Nath Rath, Parma Nand,
      Ms. Laxmi, Advs. for the Appellant.
      Ms. Uttara Babbar, Sr. Adv., Ms. Devina Sehgal, Ms. Somaya Gupta,
      Shri Singh, Harsh Parashar, Chanakya Sharma, Ms. Arunima Nair,
      Advs. for the Respondents.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

      Mehta, J.

1.    Heard.
2.    Leave granted.
3.    The instant appeal by special leave preferred by the appellant takes
      exception to the judgment dated 3rd May, 2024, passed by the High
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                             51

               B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and Another


       Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad1 in
       Criminal Petition No. 11653 of 2022, whereby the learned Single Judge
       dismissed the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
       Procedure, 19732 preferred by the appellant, seeking quashment of
       the chargesheet in Case Crime No. 1771 of 2022, submitted against
       the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 270
       and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 before the Court of learned
       XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad4.

       Brief facts: -
4.     Respondent No. 2(complainant) was working as an Assistant
       Professor, Pediatrics in National Institute for Empowerment of Persons
       with Intellectual Disabilities, Secunderabad5. On 2nd February, 2022,
       the complainant was called by the appellant, through his attender, to
       come to his chamber. During the time, appellant was discharging his
       duties as Officiating Director of the Institute(workplace). It is alleged
       that no sooner the complainant entered the chamber of the appellant,
       he started addressing her in a high-pitched voice reprimanding her
       for having filed complaints against him to the higher authority. The
       complainant immediately protested and apprised the appellant that
       as she had just recovered from Covid-19 virus and was continuously
       facing various medical issues, he must refrain from raising his voice
       at her. Immediately thereafter, her hands began to tremble and she
       started sweating profusely. She left the chamber of the appellant
       stating that she would submit a written reply in this regard.
5.     The complainant filed a complaint against the appellant on the
       same day, pursuant to which an FIR6 came to be registered on 5th
       February, 2022 at Police Station, Bowenpalli, Hyderabad for the
       offences punishable under Sections 269, 270, 504 and 354, IPC.
       Investigation was commenced and statements of various witnesses
       were recorded. The Investigating Officer submitted a chargesheet
       dated 27th September, 2022, against the appellant in the Court


1    Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
2    For short, ‘CrPC’.
3    For short ‘IPC’.
4    Hereinafter, referred to as “trial Court”.
5    For short ‘Institute(workplace)’.
6    FIR No. 65 of 2022.
52                                                            [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                              Digital Supreme Court Reports


       concerned for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 270
       and 504, IPC. It was primarily alleged in the chargesheet7 that the
       appellant failed to provide and maintain adequate PPE kits and gloves
       in the Institute(workplace), which posed a great risk of spreading
       infectious diseases such as Covid-19. The trial Court took cognizance
       of the above offences and summoned the appellant. Aggrieved by
       the chargesheet and the cognizance taken by the trial Court, the
       appellant preferred a criminal petition8 under Section 482, CrPC
       before the High Court, seeking quashment of proceedings sought
       to be taken against him in Case Crime No. 1771 of 2022.
6.     The High Court, while dismissing the above criminal petition, held that
       there was no merit in the quashing petition filed by the appellant. It
       further opined that as the allegations against appellant were serious
       in nature, therefore, the true facts of the case required to be elicited
       and proved during the trial before the trial Court. Accordingly, the
       quashing petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 3rd May,
       2024, which is assailed in the present appeal by special leave.

       Submissions on behalf of the appellant: -
7.     Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the proceedings of
       the criminal case registered against him tantamount to sheer abuse of
       the process of law, being initiated maliciously, with an ulterior motive
       and a mala fide intent. To buttress his submissions, learned Counsel
       stated that similar complaints were also made by the complainant to
       the concerned Ministry, which had sought reply from the appellant.
       As on date, all these complaints have been closed being satisfied
       with the reply of the appellant.
8.     Learned counsel further contended that even if the allegations in the
       FIR and chargesheet are accepted to be true and taken on their face
       value, they lack the basic ingredients to constitute the offences set
       out therein. These allegations do not make out a prima facie case
       against the appellant. The alleged act of speaking in a brusque manner
       by the appellant, even if accepted on the face value, was without
       any mens rea as he was only making a query from the complainant
       about her lackadaisical and lazy approach towards the discharge of


7     Case Crime No. 1771 of 2022.
8     Criminal Petition No. 11653 of 2022.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                         53

           B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and Another


     duties in the Institute(workplace). Numerous complaints were made
     on behalf of the students and their parents against the complainant
     for not being available during the duty hours. These complaints were
     pending with the appellant while he was discharging his duties as
     Officiating Director of the Institute(workplace) and the query which
     the appellant made from the complainant in his chamber was in this
     regard only, and was without any mala fide intent. He also urged that
     the chargesheet filed against the appellant lacks the fundamental facts
     and material constituting the necessary ingredients of the offences
     for which the appellant has been summoned.
     On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant urged this Court
     to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and quash
     the proceedings of the criminal case pending against the appellant
     in the trial Court pursuant to the impugned chargesheet.

     Submissions on behalf of the respondents: -
9.   Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant contended that the
     High Court was justified in dismissing the quashing petition filed by
     the appellant as it was sans merit. The contents of the FIR and the
     chargesheet make out a prima facie case of a continuous harassment
     of the complainant by the appellant. He was in the habit of maltreating
     the complainant before her clients and other office staff. To buttress
     this contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the deposition
     of witnesses examined by the police during investigation who have
     supported the version of the complainant with respect to the verbal
     altercation that had taken place on 2nd February, 2022, between the
     complainant and appellant.
10. Learned counsel further contended that the act/omissions on behalf
    of the appellant as the Director, in not maintaining and providing
    adequate supplies of PPE kits, masks and sanitizers, make out a
    prima facie case for the offences under which he has been charge-
    sheeted by the police.
     On these grounds, learned counsel for the complainant implored
     this Court to refrain from interfering with the impugned judgment
     and dismiss the appeal.
11. The learned standing counsel appearing for the State of Telangana
    also adopted the submissions of the complainant’s counsel and
    prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
54                                                            [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                            Digital Supreme Court Reports


       Analysis and Conclusion:
12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments
    advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment
    and the material placed on record.
13. The case of the complainant is primarily based on the allegation that
    the appellant used to unjustifiedly scold and reprimand her in front
    of the other employees of the Institute(workplace). She lodged an
    FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 269, 270, 504 and
    354, IPC against the appellant, which led to the submission of the
    chargesheet dated 27th September, 2022, for the offences under
    Sections 269, 270 and 504, IPC. However, section 354 of IPC, which
    was incorporated in the FIR, was deleted from the chargesheet on
    the ground that it became clear during the investigation that there
    was no attempt to outrage the modesty of the complainant.
14. The position of law is well settled by catena of judgments of this
    Court that in order to entertain a challenge to the FIR, chargesheet or
    an order taking cognizance, all that has to be seen is, whether from
    a bare reading of the chargesheet, the ingredients of the sections
    charged therein are being prima facie made out or not. Reference
    in this regard may be made to the judgment of this Court in State
    of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,9 wherein it was held that:-
              “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
              relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
              the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series
              of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
              power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
              Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
              reproduced above, we give the following categories of
              cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
              exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
              court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
              may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined
              and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
              rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
              kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.


9     (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                            55

           B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and Another


           (1) Where the allegations made in the first information
           report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
           face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
           facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
           the accused.
           (2) Where the allegations in the first information report
           and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
           disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
           by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
           under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
           155(2) of the Code.
           (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
           FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
           of the same do not disclose the commission of any
           offence and make out a case against the accused.
           (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
           cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
           offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
           without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
           Section 155(2) of the Code.
           (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
           are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
           basis of which no prudent person can ever reach
           a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
           proceeding against the accused.
           (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
           of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
           which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
           and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
           specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing
           efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
           (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
           with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
           instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
           on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
           and personal grudge.”
                                                  (emphasis supplied)
56                                                            [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


      Thus, it is trite that the constitutional courts are wholly competent to
      exercise their extraordinary power to quash the criminal proceedings
      to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure
      the ends of the justice if the allegations in the FIR or complaint neither
      disclose the commission of any offence nor make out a prima facie
      case against the accused.
15. In order to ascertain, whether appellant in the present case has
    committed any offence punishable under Sections 269, 370 and
    504, IPC, it is necessary to reproduce the allegations levelled in the
    chargesheet filed against the appellant, which read thus:-
           “On examination they all stated that the accused Mr.
           B.V. Ram Kumar is of the said firm and he will strict
           with his official works and there was some among them
           regarding Project Work since last few days. On 02.02.2022
           at about some argument ensued among the LW-1 and
           accused. The accused warned why she is not present
           in the allotment room; in turn she replied to give the
           instructions in written. In this regard there were loud
           shouting among Director Mr. B.V. Ram Kumar and LW-1
           Mrs. Mary Anurupa and the Smt. Jyothi LW-7 who is
           the nurse had checked the BP of Mrs. Mary Anurupa
           and Mr. B.V. Ram Kumar.
           Further it came to know that due to inadequate supply
           of PPE Kits and gloves to working staff, the staff may
           be effected covid and due to the act of the accused
           there likely to spread infection diseases dangerous to
           life and also provoke breach of peace in the institution.
           …
           The facts and evidence collected during the course of
           investigation it is elicited that the accused is the director
           of NIMH. The accused Harassing the LW-1 mentally in
           her working place, since from October, 2021 on one or
           other pretext. On 02.02.2022 at 23.00 hours when she
           was seeing (sic) her clients at CDEIC unit in NIEPID the
           accused sends his attender and called the LW-1 to his
           chamber and asked her whether she knows about conduct
           rules when she gave complaint against him to higher
           authority and talking with her in loud voice and shouted
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          57

           B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and Another


           on her as she submitted (sic) grievance related on him to
           her higher authorities on his behaviour. The LW-1 suffered
           with covid and facing a lot of Medical Issues and she
           should not shout as her hands shivering and sweating and
           also breathing difficulty. The accused used to call her
           to his chamber and scolding by interfering in internal
           complaints. She was sincerely affected with covid
           due to inadequate supply of PPE Kits and gloves to
           working staff in early intervention and she was in ICU
           and rejoined her duties. She had to face his shouting
           and even during her medical leave he send memo to
           reply for no mistake from her side. Due to the act off
           the accused there likely to spread infection diseases
           dangerous to life and also provoke breach of peace in
           the institution. Thus, the acts of the accused BV Ram
           (sic) Kumar has committed an offence which liable to
           be punished U/sec. 269, 270 and 504 IPC.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)

16. On a threadbare reading of the chargesheet, we find that the highest
    allegation levelled against the appellant is that he had been scolding
    the complainant in the Institute(workplace) and thereby causing
    mental harassment to her since October, 2021. On 2nd February,
    2022, at 11 o’clock in the night, while the complainant was attending
    to her clients, the appellant called her to his chamber. When the
    complainant entered the chamber of the appellant, he raised his
    voice and asked her whether she knew about the conduct rules
    before having submitted her grievance related to him to the higher
    authorities. The chargesheet also narrates that the complainant
    was affected by Covid-19 because of the inadequate supply of PPE
    kits and gloves maintained by the appellant as the Director of the
    Institute(workplace).
17. From the bare perusal of the chargesheet and documents relied
    therein, apart from the fact that the allegations are purely conjectural,
    by no stretch of imagination they can be considered sufficient to
    constitute the ingredients of the offences under Sections 269 and 270,
    IPC. The Investigating Officer seems to have been unduly influenced
    by the sensitive situation prevailing during Covid-19 and relied upon
    the bald allegations of the complainant, who alleged that the appellant
58                                                            [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


       did not provide and maintain an adequate supply of PPE kits and
       gloves for the working staff at the Institute(workplace). The allegation
       with respect to failure to maintain adequate supply of PPE kits and
       gloves stands refuted by the statements of witnesses, namely Smt.
       K. Nagarani dated 8th February, 2022, working as Hindi Translator
       and Sh. Bharat Naik dated 9th February, 2022, working as Data Entry
       Operator at the Institute(workplace), who have categorically stated
       during the investigation that there was no shortage of supply of PPE
       kits, masks or sanitizers at the Institute(workplace).
18. Admittedly, the appellant had called the complainant to his chambers.
    When she entered, the appellant is alleged to have raised his voice to
    ask her whether she had made sure about the conduct rules before
    having submitted a complaint against him to the higher authorities.
    We thus, fail to see how the Investigating Officer was able to reach
    a conclusion that a simple verbal spat which took place between the
    appellant and complainant in the chamber of the appellant would
    make the former liable under Section 504, IPC. At best, what can
    be inferred from the allegations is that the appellant spoke to the
    complainant in a loud voice and a belligerent tenor.
19. For appreciating the necessary ingredients required to substantiate
    a charge under Section 504, IPC, a reference in this regard may be
    made to the judgment of this Court in Fiona Shrikhande v. State of
    Maharashtra,10 wherein the Court discussed the essential ingredients
    of Section 504, IPC. The Court held as follows: -
              “13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients
              viz. (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as
              to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the
              accused must intend or know that such provocation
              would cause another to break the public peace or to
              commit any other offence. The intentional insult must
              be of such a degree that should provoke a person
              to break the public peace or to commit any other
              offence. The person who intentionally insults intending
              or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to
              any other person and such provocation will cause to
              break the public peace or to commit any other offence,


10    (2013) 14 SCC 44
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                         59

           B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and Another


           in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are
           satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting
           the offence is that there should have been an act or
           conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere
           fact that the accused abused the complainant, as
           such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction
           under Section 504 IPC.”
           14. We may also indicate that it is not the law that the
           actual words or language should figure in the complaint.
           One has to read the complaint as a whole and, by doing
           so, if the Magistrate comes to a conclusion, prima facie,
           that there has been an intentional insult so as to provoke
           any person to break the public peace or to commit any
           other offence, that is sufficient to bring the complaint
           within the ambit of Section 504 IPC. It is not the law that
           a complainant should verbatim reproduce each word or
           words capable of provoking the other person to commit any
           other offence. The background facts, circumstances,
           the occasion, the manner in which they are used, the
           person or persons to whom they are addressed, the
           time, the conduct of the person who has indulged in
           such actions are all relevant factors to be borne in
           mind while examining a complaint lodged for initiating
           proceedings under Section 504 IPC.”
                                                (emphasis supplied)

20. Thus, upon reading the complaint as a whole, if the Magistrate
    comes to a conclusion, prima facie, that there has been an intentional
    insult made by the accused to the complainant so as to provoke the
    latter to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, then
    only the act complained of would fall within the ambit of Section
    504, IPC. The law does not mandate that the complainant should
    verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of provoking him/
    her to commit breach of peace or any other offence. The background
    facts, circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which the offending
    words are used, the person to whom they are addressed, the time,
    the conduct of the person who has indulged in such actions are all
    relevant factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint
    lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504, IPC.
60                                                           [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


21. Further, this Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid v. State of
    U.P.,11 while discussing Section 504, IPC, propounded the test for
    considering the circumstances wherein, an abusive language takes
    the form and shape of an intentional insult and held thus:-
       “28. Section 504 of the IPC contemplates intentionally
            insulting a person and thereby provoking such person
            insulted to breach the peace or intentionally insulting a
            person knowing it to be likely that the person insulted
            may be provoked so as to cause a breach of the public
            peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may
            not come within the purview of the section. But, the
            words of abuse in a particular case might amount to an
            intentional insult provoking the person insulted to commit a
            breach of the public peace or to commit any other offence.
            If abusive language is used intentionally and is of such
            a nature as would in the ordinary course of events lead
            the person insulted to break the peace or to commit
            an offence under the law, the case is not taken away
            from the purview of the Section merely because the
            insulted person did not actually break the peace or
            commit any offence having exercised self-control or
            having been subjected to abject terror by the offender.
            In judging whether particular abusive language is attracted
            by Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in the
            ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the abusive
            language used and not what the complainant actually did
            as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool temperament
            or sense of discipline. It is the ordinary general nature
            of the abusive language that is the test for considering
            whether the abusive language is an intentional insult
            likely to provoke the person insulted to commit a
            breach of the peace and not the particular conduct
            or temperament of the complainant.
       29. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence, may
           not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning
           of Section 504, IPC if it does not have the necessary


11    2023 SCC Online SC 951
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          61

           B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and Another


           element of being likely to incite the person insulted to
           commit a breach of the peace of an offence and the
           other element of the accused intending to provoke the
           person insulted to commit a breach of the peace or
           knowing that the person insulted is likely to commit
           a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive language
           shall have to be decided in the light of the facts and
           circumstances of that case and there cannot be a general
           proposition that no one commits an offence under Section
           504, IPC if he merely uses abusive language against the
           complainant.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)

22. Needless to say, that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence
    does not amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section
    504, IPC. Furthermore, it would be immaterial that the person who
    has been insulted and provoked did not actually break the peace
    or commit any offence.
23. Section 504, IPC consists of two parts. Firstly, the actus reus- being
    the intentional insult which gives rise to the provocation. Secondly,
    the mens rea, i.e., the intention or knowledge on the part of the
    accused that such intentional provocation is likely to cause the
    person insulted to break public peace or commit any other offence.
    The animus nocendi in Section 504, IPC is that the accused should
    ‘intentionally insult’ the other person with the intention or knowledge
    that the provocation caused by such insult is likely to result in the
    commission of breach of public peace or any other offence by the
    person who has been so insulted. The offence is said to be complete
    once the accused person makes ‘intentional insult’ with the aforesaid
    mens rea. Hence, intention or knowledge on the part of accused
    person that his actions of making ‘intentional insult’ have the potential
    to provoke the person insulted is sine qua non for the commission
    of the offence under Section 504, IPC.
24. The natural corollary of the above discussion is that if the accused
    does not intend to give provocation, the offence is not made out. An
    insult without an ‘intention to insult’ is not punishable under Section
    504, IPC. Further, ‘intentional insult’ must be of such a degree that
    it has the potential to provoke a reasonable person to break the
    public peace or to commit any other offence.
62                                                          [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


25. It is trite that whether the person provoked further commits an illegal
    act or not is immaterial to draw the conclusion of culpability under
    Section 504, IPC. The ‘intentional insult’ and provocation must be so
    proximate and close that the accused has either the intention or the
    knowledge that the intentional insult made by him is likely to cause
    the provoked person to break public peace or commit some other
    offence. However, what would be the nature of ‘intentional insult’
    causing provocation, to draw culpability under Section 504, IPC would
    depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The test to
    be applied to determine if the intentional insult made by the accused
    is sufficient to cause provocation is that of a reasonable person, i.e.,
    if the insult is sufficient to provoke any reasonable person to break
    peace or commit any other offence, only then the accused will be
    liable for the offence under Section 504, IPC.
26. In the case at hand, all that the chargesheet discloses is that the
    appellant and the complainant had a verbal altercation which became
    unbearable for the complainant owing to her medical conditions. At
    the time of the incident, the appellant was discharging his functions
    as the Director of the Institute(workplace) and he was therefore,
    entrusted with the administration and management of the entire
    Institute(workplace) and in addition, he was required to discharge
    his own professional obligations as a medical professional to both
    the Institute(workplace) and the society at large. It is, therefore, a
    reasonable expectation on the part of a person, who caters to the
    affairs at the helm, that his juniors should attend to the professional
    affairs of the Institute(workplace) with utmost sincerity and dedication.
    We are equally cognizant of the circumstances that existed during
    the times of Covid-19 pandemic and the pressure on the medical
    professionals was multiplied manifold, therefore, in our view it was
    reasonable for the appellant to contemplate similar expectations
    from his juniors/associates.
27. Furthermore, it is also pertinent to note the fact that complaints
    with respect to indiscipline in the Institute(workplace) were already
    pending with the office of the Director of the Institute(workplace). In
    addition, the appellant while discharging his duties as Director had
    received numerous complaints from the parents of students against
    the complainant about negligence in the discharge of her duties.
    In this backdrop, there was nothing out of ordinary for the person
    in charge of the Institution(workplace) to call such subordinate to
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                           63

           B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and Another


      the chambers and reprimand them in order to restore discipline in
      the Institute(workplace). The intention behind this was simply to
      control the perceived indiscipline of the subordinates who were
      alleged to be shirking from the performance of their duties and were
      displaying lethargic, lackadaisical and laid-back approach towards the
      profession. If such a behaviour is not checked by superior officers,
      who have been entrusted with the task of administration, it could
      lead to become a premium for other employees to follow suit.
28. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, appellant’s act of
    reprimanding the complainant cannot by any stretch of imagination
    be treated to be an ‘intentional insult’ meted out to the complainant
    so as to provoke her to commit breach of peace or any other offence.
    If the interpretation advanced from the side of prosecution and the
    complainant is accepted, it may lead to gross misuse of liberty in
    workplaces. Therefore, in our opinion, senior’s admonition cannot
    be reasonably attributed to mean an ‘intentional insult with the intent
    to provoke’ within the means of Section 504, IPC, provided that the
    admonition relates to the matters incidental to the workplace covering
    discipline and the discharge of duties therein.
29. From a perusal of the impugned chargesheet and the statements
    recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation,
    it is discernible that the appellant has been roped in the present
    criminal proceedings on account of his strict demeanour and the
    tendency to maintain discipline which is reasonably expected of
    individuals who serve a noble vocation of a medical profession
    while also serving as the head of the Institution during the difficult
    time of Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, we are of the firm view that
    allowing criminal charges to be pressed against the individual being
    the Director of the Institute(workplace) for trying to maintain discipline
    may lead to disastrous consequences crippling the entire disciplinary
    atmosphere required in the workplace. We do not find existence of
    the necessary ingredients constituting the offences applied in the
    chargesheet so as to allow further prosecution of the appellant and
    hence, it is a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings initiated
    against the appellant.
30.    As a consequence of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned
      judgment dated 3rd May, 2024, passed by the High Court for the State
      of Telangana at Hyderabad is quashed and set aside. Resultantly,
64                                                       [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


      the impugned chargesheet being CC No. 1771 of 2022 for offences
      punishable under Sections 269, 270 and 504, IPC filed before the
      Court of learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
      Hyderabad and all the proceedings sought to be taken thereunder
      against the appellant are hereby quashed.
31. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
32. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

      Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



      †
          Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan