Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1231 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 382 of 2013]

Fiona Shrikhande .. Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Another .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

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.   

3. The Complainant (2nd respondent herein) is the sister-in-law  

of  the  accused,  being  the  wife  of  the  complainant’s  brother.

Page 2

2

Complainant and her brother are the sole surviving heirs of their  

parents who are no more.   Facts indicate that the father had the  

tenancy rights over the flat where the incident is alleged 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 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 occupied one out of the four bedrooms in the flat  

and then indulged in several unlawful 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. and then left for  

filing a complaint before the Cuffe Parade Police Station against  

the complainant stating that she had broken the locks of their  

rooms in the flat.  After lodging the complaint, she came back to

Page 3

3

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:

“….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 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 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 this  with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious  feelings of me and my husband knowing fully well that  it would not only 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 her not to indulge in such a sacrilegious  act.   Even then, the Accused ignored the pleas of her

Page 4

4

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 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  

Complaint  Case No.  4701623/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.   

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 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

Page 5

5

attempted to provoke the complainant, so as to attract Section  

504 IPC.  Further, it was pointed out that the complaint ought to  

have disclosed the 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.   

7. The Revision Application was resisted to by the 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 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 rival  

contentions, found no merits in the application and dismissed the  

same vide his order dated 27.7.2012.   Aggrieved by the same,

Page 6

6

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 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 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 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 complaint  

discloses sufficient materials leading to the offence under Section

Page 7

7

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  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 should state in so  

many words that the intention of the accused was fraudulent.       

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 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  the province of  the  

Magistrate to enquire into a detailed discussion on the merits or

Page 8

8

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 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 Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others (1976) 3 SCC  

736, this 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  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.  Section 504  

is extracted for easy reference:

Page 9

9

“504.   Intentional  insult  with  intent  to  provoke  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 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 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, 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

Page 10

10

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.   

Page 11

11

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.   

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.

………………………………J.  (K. S. Radhakrishnan)

…………………………..….J.  (A. K. Sikri)

New Delhi, August 22, 2013