FIONA SHRIKHANDEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

                         [2013] 9 S.C.R. 240


A                       FIONA SHRIKHANDE
                                  v.
           STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
               (Criminal Appeal No. 1231 of 2013)
                         AUGUST 22, 2013
B
         [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.]

        CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:

c      s. 202 -Complaint - Order of Magistrate taking
  cognizance and issuing process against accused -
  Challenged - Held: Scope of enquiry u/s 202 is extremely
  limited in the sense that the Magistrate, at this stage, is
  expected to examine prima facie the truth or falsehood of
  allegations made in the complaint -- He is not expected to
0
  embark upon a detailed discussion of merits or demerits of
  the case, but only to consider inherent probabilities apparent
  on the statement made in the complaint -- Once the
  Magistrate has exercised his discretion in forming an opinion
  that there is ground for proceeding, it is not for higher courts
E to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate -- In
  the instant case, the complaint discloses a prima facie case
  made out for initiating proceedings for the offence punishable
  u/s 504 /PC - Penal Code, 1860 - s.504.

F       PENAL CODE, 1860:

        s. 504 - Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of
    peace - Ingredients - Explained.

       Respondent no. 2, filed a complaint case against her
G sister-in-law (accused-appellant) stating that the latter
  entered the Puja room and proceeded to drag the
  :oevara' out in such a manner that all its frames were
  dislodged and idols of 'Kula Devatas' along with the lamp

H                                 240
 FIONA SHRIKHANDE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 241


  lit therein fell to the floor. It was stated that the accused A
  did this with the delibera.te intention of wounding the
  religious feelings of the complainant and her husband.
  The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate found a
  prima facie case to take cognizance of offence
. punishable u/s 504 IPC against the appellant and issued . B
  process to her. The revisional court and the High Court
  declined to interfere.

     Dismissing the appeal, the Court,

      HELD: 1. At the complaint stage, the scope of            C
 enquiry u/s 202 Cr. P. C. is extremely limited in the sense
 that the Magistrate, at this stage, is expected to examine
 prima facie the truth or falsehood of the allegations made
 in the complaint. Magistrate is not expected to embark
 upon a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of       D
 the case, but only consider the inherent probabilities
 apparent on the statement made in the complaint. The
 Magistrate has to decide the question purely from the
 point of view of the complaint, without at all adverting to
 any defence that the accused may have. Once the               E
 Magistrate has exercised his discretion in forming an
 opinion that there is ground for proceeding, it is not for
 the higher courts to substitute its own discretion for that
 of the Magistrate. [Para 11] [246-D-G]

     Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and            F
                                  =
 Others 1976 (0) Suppl. SCR 123 (1976) 3 sec 736, relied
 on.

      2. The ingredients of s.504, IPC are:· (a) intentional
 insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation    G
 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       H
    242       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A commit any other offence. 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 u/
B s 504 IPC. In the instant case, a reading of the complaint
  discloses that a prima facie case has been made out for
  initiating proceedings for the offence punishable u/s 504
  IPC. [Para 13 and 15] [247-C-D, E-F; 248-B-C]
                          Case Law Reference:
c
     1976 (0) Suppl. SCR 123            relied on         para 11
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 1231 of 2013.

D        From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.2012 of the
    High. Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2944 of
    2012.

     C.U. Singh, Siddhesh Bhole, Bhargava, V. Desai, Shreyas
E Mehrotra for the Appellant.

          Uday U. Lalit, Farid F. Karachiwala for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F         K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

         2. We are, in this case, concerned with an incident which
    happened in Flat No. 5, 2nd Floor, Goolestan, East Wing, Cuffe
    Parade, Mumbai, which led to the filing of a complaint alleging
    offences under Sections 294 and 504 IPC.
G
         3. The Complainant (2nd respondent herein) is the sister-
    in-law of the accused, being the wife of the complainant's
    brother. Complainant and her brother are the sole surviving heirs
    of their parents who are no more. Facts indicate that the father
H
FIONA SHRIKHANDE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 243
          [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
had the tenancy rights over the flat where the incident is alleged   A
to have taken place.

      4. Complaint Case No. 4701623/SS/11 was filed before
the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court at
Esplanade Mumbai alleging offences punishable under
                                                                     8
Sections 298 and 504 IPC. Complainant stated that she moved
into the above mentioned flat on 23.04.2011 along with her
husband, her servants and necessary household belongings.
Having come to know of the same, her brother along with
accused came to India from USA and occupi~d one out of the
four bedrooms in the flat and then indulged in several unlawful      C
acts with a view to push the complainant out of the flat. On
8.5.2011, the accused accompanied by her daughter (born to
her from her first marriage) came to the flat at about 4.00 p.m.
anc:t then left for filing a complaint before the Cuffe Parade
Police Station against the complainant stating that she had          D
broken the locks of their rooms in the flat. After lodging the
com13laint, she came back to the flat and rushed into the room
where the idols are kept and shouted that she would not permit
anyone to enter the Puja room. The complainant has described
the incident as follows:                                             E

    " ....As I and my husband were explaining to S.I. Pawar that
    she had no right whatsoever to deny or prevent our access
    to the Puja Room the Accused shouted that if I was so keen
    on doing Puja, she would move the Devara outside. She            F
    ran to the Devara and began to push it. Finding it a little
    heavy, she then ran in frenzy, picked up my clothes and
    that I had left on the bed, took them to the living room and
    threw them on the sofa. She then came back to the Puja
    Room and in a premeditated fashion made a second                 G
    attempt to push the Devara ,out of the room. She
    proceeded to drag the Devara in a rough manner thereby
    dislodging all the frames and idols of our Kula Devatas
    making them fall to the floor. The lamp that I had lit also
    fell to the ground and the flame was extinguished. She did
                                                                     H
    244       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A         this with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious
          feelings of me and my husband knowing fully well that it
          would not onlv wound our religious feelings but will cause
          us a lot of hurt and anguish at this sacrilege at her hands.
          At this point of time. even S.I. Pawar tried to reason with
B         her not to indulge in such a sacrilegious act. Even then.
          the Accused ignored the pleas of her own daughter and
          of S.I. Pawar to stop indulging in such sacrilege to our
          Gods. and intentional insult to me and my husband.
          Thereafter, Marisha shouted at the Accused and asked
c         her to stop indulging in such acts."

                                                (emphasis supplied)

       5. On the basis of the above allegations, the complainant
  preferred a complaint on 18.5.2011, which was registered as
D Complaint Case No. 4 701623/SS/11. Learned Additional Chief
  Magistrate, after perusal of the complaint, found a prima facie
  case to take cognizance under Section 504 IPC against the
  accused and, consequently, issued process to the accused
  vide his order dated 23.8.2011.
E
       6. The appellant then preferred Criminal Revision
  Application No. 1124 of 2011 challenging the order issuing the
  process for offence punishable under Section 504 IPC. It was
  contented that the allegation that she had indulged in any action
  with an intention to provoke the complainant to break breach
F of public peace or commit any other offence, was totally
  unfounded. Further, it was also pointed out that no details had
  been furnished in that complaint to show in what manner the
  appellant had attempted to provoke the complainant, so as to
  attract Section 504 IPC. Further, it was pointed out that the
G complaint ought to have disclosed ttie actual words if, at all,
  used by the appellant, which would have provoked her to
  commit any other offence. It was also pointed out that the
  learned Magistrate has not properly understood the scope of
  Section 202 Cr.P.C. in issuing the process to the appellant.
H
   FIONA SHRIKHANDE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 245
             [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
       7. The Revision Application was resisted to by the               A
  complainant and, referring to various statements made in the
  complaint, it was submitted that the ingredients of Section 504
  IPC have been fully satisfied. Further, it was also pointed out
  that it is not necessary that the complaint should verbatim
  reproduce the words spoken by the appellant and that once the         B
  complaint makes out a prima facie case for issuing the process
  and the Court is satisfied of the same, the Court has got the
  power to issue the process under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

       8. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after examining the        C
  rival contentions, found no merits in the application and
  dismissed the same vide his order dated 27.7.2012. Aggrieved
  by the same, the accused preferred Criminal Writ Petition No.
  2944 of 2012 for quashing the proceedings initiated under
  Section 504 IPC before the High Court. Learned single Judge
  of the High Court, after perusing the rival contentions, also found   D
  no merits in the said petition and dismissed the same, against
  which this appeal has been preferred.

       9. Shri C.U. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for
  the appellant, submitted that the learned Magistrate has              E
  committed an error in taking cognizance of an offence under
  Section 504 IPC, in the absence of any material specifying the
  insulting words actually used by the accused, which would have
  provocated the complainant to commit any other offence.
  Learned senior counsel submitted that the learned Magistrate          F
  ought not to have taken the cognizance and issued the process
  on a complaint which is nothing but verbatim reproduction of
  the language of Section 504 IPC, without any particulars.

         10. Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing
    for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the          G
    complaint discloses sufficient materials leading to the offence
· --under Section 504 IPC and the learned Magistrate has correctly
    taken cognizance of the same and issued the process and the
    Sessions Judge as well as the High Court has rightly rejected
    the prayer for quashing the proceedings initiated under Section     H
    246       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A 504 IPC. Learned senior counsel submitted that if the averments
  in the complaint prima facie make out a case, the Magistrate
  can always taken cognizance of the same and it is not
  necessary that the complaint should verbatim reproduce all the
  ingredients of the offence nor is it necessary that the complaint
B should state in so many words that the intention of the accused
  was frauduleht.

          11. We are, in this case, concerned only with the question
    as to whether, on a reading of the complaint, a prima facie
    case has been made out or not to issue process by the
C   Magistrate. The law as regards issuance of process in criminal
    cases is well settled. At the complaint stage, the Magistrate is
    merely concerned with the allegations made out in the
    complaint and has only to prima facie satisfy whether there are
    sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and it is not
D   the province of the Magistrate to enquire into a detailed
    discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. The scope
    of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely limited in the sense
    that the Magistrate, at this stage, is expected to examine prima
    facie the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the
E   complaint. Magistrate is not expected to embark upon a
    detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case, but
    only consider the inherent probabilities apparent on the
    statement made in the complaint. In Nagawwa v. Veeranna
    Shiva/ingappa Konjalgi and Others (1976) 3 SCC 736, this
F   Court held that once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion
    in forming an opinion that there is ground for proceeding, it is
    not for the Higher Courts to substitute its own discretion for that
    of the Magistrate. The Magistrate has to decide the question
    purely from the point of view of the complaint, without at all
G   adverting to any defence that the accused may have.

       12. Having noticed the scope of Section 202 Cr.P.C., let
  us examine whether the ingredients of Section 504 IPC have
  been made out for the Magistrate to initiate proceedings.
H Section 504 is extracted for easy reference:
FIONA SHRIKHANDE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 247
          [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
            "504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke              A
     breach of the peace.- Whoever intentionally insults, and
     thereby gives provocation to any 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,
     shall be punished with imprisonment of either description           B
     for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
     with both."

     13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following
ingredients, viz., (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such   C
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 thzt
should provoke a person to break the public peace or to
commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults           D
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, in such a
situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of
the essential elements constituting the offence is that there            E
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.
                                                                         F
      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          G
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
                                                                         H
    248      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 9 S.C.R.


A   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 relevam
    factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint lodged
    for initiating proceedings under Section 504 IPC.
B
        15. We have already extracted the relevant portions of the
    complaint. If they are so read in the above legal settings, in our
    view, a prima facie case has been made out for initiating
    proceedings for the offence alleged under Section 504 IPC.

c        16. In such circumstances, we find no reason to take a
    different view from that of the High Court. The appeal is
    accordingly dismissed, without expressing any opinion on the
    merits of the case.

D R.P.                                           Appeal dismissed.