KISHORSINH AMARSINH BARIYA vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 12214 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
KISHORSINH AMARSINH BARIYA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
JAY R SHAH(8428) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MS ROMA I FIDELIS(3529) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
ROHAN SHAH APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 22/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed
to quash and set aside the impugned FIR bearing I-CR No.
11187002200761 of 2020, filed against them by Respondent No.
2 – Original Complainant on 10.07.2020 at Balasinor Police
Station, District Mahisagar, for the offences punishable under
Sections 306, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.
1.1 Today, learned APP has handed over a photocopy of the
death certificate of petitioner No. 1, Kishorsinh Amarsinh Bariya,
who passed away on 23.01.2021 the photocopy of which is taken
Page 1 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
on record.
1.2 In view of the same, the present petition qua petitioner No. 1
stands abated.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:
2.1 That his son namely Sunil @ Vipul (deceased) was married
to Applicant no.1’s daughter namely Maniben @ Bhuriben. That
on 07.07.2020 at around 2.00 pm he received a phone call that
his daughter in law i.e., Maniben has expired by drowning into
the well and thereafter, she was taken to Civil Hospital where she
was declared dead.
2.2 On 08.07.2020, his son informed the Original Complainant
that his in laws have been to Balasinor police station to register a
compliant against the present Original Complainant and his son
and therefore, he went to Balasinor police station.
2.3 Thereafter, he informed his Vevai to go for a cremation of
his daughter in law, however, the Applicant No. 1 denied the
same and started scolding him and the other applicants also
started scolding him and therefore, they were scared.
2.4 Thereafter, he was informed by the police officer that since
the Applicant no.1 has lodged a complaint agianst him and before
detaining him he has to undergo corona test, he and his son slept
at the police station on that day and on the next daty, since his
son was scare he commited suicide in the toilet of the police
station. Hence, the present petition.
Page 2 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
3. Learned advocate Mr. Jay R Shah for the petitioners would
submit that:-
3.1 The daughter of applicant No.1 was married to the son of
the complainant, and she was harassed at her matrimonial home
by her husband, present complainant being father-in-law and
other in-laws.
3.2 It is further submitted that the demand of dowry was also
made several times by the present complainant, the father-in-
law, as well as her husband and that the deceased daughter of
the present petitioner was continuously harassed, which was also
made known to the present applicant No.1, now expired.
3.3 However, to save the married life, the present petitioner
No.1 made her understand that this is a part and parcel of life,
and thus she continued her life at the matrimonial home.
3.4 It is further submitted that on the 7th of July, 2020, the
petitioner No.1 herein came to know that her daughter had
expired at the farm of the complainant, and therefore, on
8/7/2020, the petitioner lodged a complaint under the provisions
of Sections 306, 498, and 114 of the IPC with regard to the
alleged incident having taken place at Balasinor Police Station
against the husband, now deceased, father-in-law, present
complainant, and other relatives of her daughter.
3.5 Learned advocate would further submit that the daughter of
petitioner No.1 was married to the son of the complainant, who
Page 3 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
harassed her at her matrimonial home, due to which she
committed suicide, pursuant to which the present petitioner No.1
lodged the FIR, and for the reasons best known the deceased
husband, he committed suicide while in police custody. Thus,
merely because of the lodging of the FIR with regard to the death
of the present petitioner No.1's daughter cannot be said to be
pressure tactics.
3.6 Learned advocate would further submit that petitioner No.1,
having availed of his statutory right to get the FIR registered
against the wrongdoers, has committed no wrong or any crime,
and since the son-in-law was scared to face the legal
consequences, had committed suicide, under such
circumstances, the present petitioners cannot be saddled with
the criminal liability of abetting the said suicide, which was
committed for unknown reasons.
3.7 Learned advocate would further submit that the present FIR
was lodged against the petitioners only to pressurize the present
petitioners so as to come to a compromise with regard to the FIR
lodged by the petitioner No.1, father of the deceased daughter,
and on the contrary, it was the duty of the personnel deputed at
the Police Station to take care of him, since he was in police
custody, and therefore, such responsibility cannot be saddled
upon the shoulders of the present petitioners, and prayed to
allow the present petition.
4. Learned Advocates for the Original Complainant Ms Roma I
Fidelis as well as the learned APP would jointly submit that the
matrimonial life of the husband and wife was for more than 10
Page 4 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
years.
4.1 That throughout the entire marriage tenure there were no
allegations of any mental or physical cruelty being meted out to
the deceased wife. Thus, the act of committing suicide was not
because of any cruelty meted out to her.
4.2 Learned Advocate for the Original Complainant would submit
that the threats which were meted out to the deceased husband,
who had committed suicide, are clearly surfacing from the
averments made in the FIR. The illegal demands of transferring
the property, administering threats and pressurizing the
deceased husband were made. This attracts abetment of suicide,
because of this, the husband has committed suicide, and
therefore, attracts Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC.
Thus, argued to reject the present petition.
5. Heard Learned Advocates for the respective parties.
5.1.1 Prior to assessing the factual matrix on the touchstone of
criminal jurisprudence, it is apposite to reinforce the settled legal
position governing the scope, ambit, and limits of the inherent
jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of the Code. The
jurisprudential parameters regulating the exercise of this
extraordinary power have been authoritatively catalogued by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a long line of precedents, chief among
them being the authoritative in the case of State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal [AIR 1992 SC 604] . Therein, Hon’ble Supreme
Court crystallized seven distinct, illustrative categories of cases
where judicial intervention under Section 482 of the Code or
Page 5 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
Article 226 of the Constitution is necessitated to secure the ends
of justice and clip any abuse of the process of Court. The relevant
portion of Paragraph 102 of the said judgment is extracted below:
“ 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 have given 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.
(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
Page 6 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
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.”
Evaluating the present application on the anvil of the
principles enunciated in Bhajan Lal (supra) , this Court has to
determine whether the allegations in the FIR, even when
accepted at face value, satisfy the essential statutory ingredients
of Sections 306, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the IPC. This Court must
ensure that criminal machinery is not permitted to degenerate
into an engine of harassment where liability under criminal law is
completely absent.
5.1.2 The factum of the wife having committed suicide is not in
Page 7 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
dispute. The factum of the complainant's son Sunil @ Vipul also
having committed suicide pursuant to his arrest is also not in
dispute. The question is whether the deceased husband had
committed suicide because of the threats administered by the
present petitioners or not, is to be decided from the reading of
the FIR.
5.2 So far as the complaint against the in-laws of the deceased
daughter of petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the same was lodged
by the present petitioner, Kishorsingh Amarsingh Bariya, against
(i) Vipul Natwarbhai Chauhan (husband of the deceased), (ii)
Natwarbhai Shanabhai Chauhan (father-in-law), (iii) Dahiben
Natwarbhai Chauhan (mother-in-law), and (iv) Premilaben
Natwarbhai Chauhan, for the offences punishable under Sections
306, 498A, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The said FIR was
registered on 08.07.2020.
5.3 The complaint came to be lodged on the day following the
suicide committed by petitioner No. 1's daughter. Pursuant to the
said FIR, Sunil @ Vipul Natwarbhai Chauhan, the husband of the
deceased, was arrested by the police.
5.4 It is the case that, while in the custody of the Balasinor
Police Station, Sunil @ Vipul Natwarbhai Chauhan committed
suicide inside the police station. Pursuant to which, FIR came to
be registered on 10.07.2020
5.5 If the entire FIR is read as it is, what has been alleged
against the petitioners is that if the land is transferred in the
name of the children of the deceased through a registered
Page 8 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
document/stamp paper, only then would the dead body of the
wife be allowed to be taken away for the last rites.
5.6 Therefore, on 08.07.2020, the complainant went with two
stamp papers to the office of the Mamlatdar, Balasinor. However,
none of the persons from the family of the in-laws of the
deceased, Sunil @ Vipul, were present there. Thereafter, the
complainant came to know through word of mouth that Sunil @
Vipul's father in law, namely, Kishorsingh Amarsingh Bariya,
along with his relatives, had gone to the Balasinor Police Station
to lodge an FIR against them.
5.7 Thus, they left the office of the Mamlatdar and went to the
Balasinor Police Station, where they sat there. Thereafter, they
went to the Government Hospital, where the post-mortem was
performed, and requested Kishorsingh Amarsingh Bariya and
Jhalam Singh Khatubhai Bariya to accompany them for
performing the last rituals at village Dakhariya. Pursuant to this,
both of them became agitated, started using abusive language,
threatened to kill them, and started pulling their son Sunil @
Vipul and were about to hit him.
5.8 At that time, Pritesh Chauhan took informant’s son Sunil @
Vipul away towards the Balasinor Police Station. At that time,
Jasubhai Bariya, Ranjitsingh Bariya, and Laxmansingh Bariya, all
residents of village Kharol, threatened them by stating that, by
lodging the FIR today, they would ensure that they were locked
up. However, once they were released, they would not spare his
son Sunil @ Vipul and would also demolish the newly constructed
house. They further stated that they had come along with diesel
Page 9 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
and petrol and would not allow them to perform the last rituals of
their daughter.
5.9 Thus, they threatened all of them, due to which they all
became frightened that they would kill his son Sunil. Therefore,
they did not allow Sunil @ Vipul to attend the last rituals of his
wife and sought police protection from the Balasinor Police
Station. After such protection was provided, they performed the
last rituals of Maniben alias Bhuriben.
5.10 It is also alleged in the FIR that the family members of the
in-laws of the deceased informed that Sunil @ Vipul had informed
his father that he would not be spared by the family members of
his in-laws, to which the complainant replied, "Don't worry. I will
take care." However, on the next morning, he committed suicide.
5.10.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra
Awase vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2025) 4 SCC
801 has held in para 10 to 19 as under:-
“10. Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:-
“306. Abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.”
11. Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-
“107. Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a
thing, who-
First. - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly. -
Engages with one or more other person or persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
Page 10 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and
in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly. - Intentionally
aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”
12. As is clear from the plain language of the Sections to
attract the ingredient of Section 306 , the accused should have
abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of
a thing who Firstly - instigates any person to do that thing or
Secondly - engages with one or more other person or persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing or Thirdly - intentionally aids, by
any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, the
appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die' and the
deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:- (SCC
p.439, para 3)
"3. ...Those words are casual nature which are often
employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling
people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The
said act does not reflect the requisite 'mens rea' on the
assumption that these words would be carried out in all
events. …"
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another , (2010)
8 SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence
under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section
107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about
the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is
required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid
or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for
attracting Section 306 .
15. In Amalendu Pal vs. State of West Bengal , this Court held as
under:- (SCC p.712, para 12)
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that
before holding an accused guilty of an offence under
Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the
facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the
evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the
cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the
Page 11 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life.
It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged
abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect
acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on
the allegation of harassment without there being any
positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the
part of the accused which led or compelled the person to
commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable.
[Emphasis supplied]
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306
IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the
said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the
commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act
of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission
of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged
with the said offence must be proved and established by the
prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
17. M. Mohan vs. State , (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh
Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh , (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it
was held as under:-
41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has
examined different shades of the meaning of "instigation".
Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629)
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of
instigation though it is not necessary that actual words
must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation
must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The
present one is not a case where the accused had by his
acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct
created such circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit suicide in which case
an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in
the fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation."
Page 12 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that there is no
evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of
the appellant- accused having abetted commission of suicide by
Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.”
18. Thereafter, this Court in Mohan (supra) held:-
“45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the
cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to
convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a
clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an
active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit
suicide seeing no option and this act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position that
he/she committed suicide.”
[Emphasis supplied]
19. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of
instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued
course of conduct should have created such circumstances that
the deceased was left with no other option except to commit
suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger
and emotion without intending the consequences to actually
follow cannot be said to be instigation.
5.11 Thus, in sum and substance, the allegations levelled in the
FIR prima facie do not disclose any ingredients to attract the
provisions of Section 107 of the IPC, since the FIR lodged by the
present petitioner No. 1 was not only against Sunil @ Vipul but
was also lodged against Natwarbhai, Dahiben, and Premilaben.
Merely stating that "we will not allow your son to live after he
released” would be of no avail, inasmuch as the deceased Sunil
@ Vipul was in police custody. If the alleged threat is taken into
consideration, it was to the effect that once they were released
on bail, they would not spare the husband of their daughter.
Under such circumstances, no ingredients of Section 107 read
with Section 306 of the IPC are made out because threat would
Page 13 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
be relevant only and after deceased Sunil @ Vipul was released.
5.11 A person may react differently to different situations.
However, merely because of the alleged threat, except for Sunil
@ Vipul, none of the accused persons in the FIR lodged by
Kishorsingh Amarsingh Bariya, petitioner No. 1, are alleged to
have taken any drastic step as taken by deceased Sunil @ Vipul.
5.12 As far as the allegations in the FIR lodged by Kishorsingh
with regard to Sections 306, 498-A, and 114 of the IPC are
concerned, this Court is not seized of the quashing of the said
proceedings. However, it clearly transpires that after lodging of
the complaint/FIR by Kishorsingh, the deceased Sunil @ Vipul
committed suicide in the Police Station. The alleged threat
administered by the present petitioners does not amount to an
act of abetment of suicide, inasmuch as there is no past threat
alleged to have been administered to any person. It further
clearly transpires that, with a view to ensuring that the
petitioner's family, who had lodged a complaint against the in-
laws of the deceased daughter, may arrive at a settlement due to
the pressure exerted upon them on account of the lodging of the
FIR, the present allegations have been made, which otherwise do
not attract the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC.
5.13 The applicants sought quash of the said FIR on the ground
that no such threat or abuse, as alleged, was given by them to
the de facto complainant and no damage to any property has
occurred and would contend that even if any such a threat/abuse
is given, that by itself would not constitute an offence punishable
under Sections 306, 504, 506(2) r/w. 114 of the IPC for which the
Page 14 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
FIR was registered. Therefore, they sought quash of the FIR on
the said ground.
5.14 To shore up the said contention, the learned advocate for
the applicants relied on a decision in Vikram Johar (supra) ,
wherein it is observed as under:
“23. In paragraph No.13 of the judgment, this Court has noticed
the ingredients of Section 504, which are to the following effect:-
“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 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 Indian Penal Code.”
24. In another judgment, i.e., Manik Taneja and Another Vs.
State of Karnataka and Another, MANU/SC/0056/2015 : (2015) 7
SCC 423, this Court has again occasion to examine the ingredients
of Sections 503 and 506. In the above case also, case was registered
for the offence under Sections 353 and 506 I.P.C. After noticing
Section 503, which defines criminal intimidation, this Court laid
down following in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12:-
Page 15 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
“11. Xxxxxxxxxxxxx
A reading of the definition of “criminal intimidation” would
indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another
person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or
property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom
the threatened person is interested and the threat must be
with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it
must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or
omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
12. In the instant case, the allegation is that the
appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the
second respondent from discharging his public duties and
spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the
intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding
as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning
of “criminal intimidation”. The threat must be with
intention tocause alarm to the complainant to cause that
person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any
words without any intention to cause alarm would not be
sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But
material has to be placed on record to show that the
intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the
facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was
no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in
the mind of the second respondent causing obstruction in
discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on
Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum
meant for helping the public and the act of the appellants
posting a comment on Facebook may not attract ingredients
of criminal intimidation in Section 503 Indian Penal Code.”
27. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of
criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona
Shrikhande (supra) has also to be applied when question of finding
out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here,
the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant.
Page 16 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are
ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal
& Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edition with regard to proof of
offence states following: -
“…The prosecution must prove:
(i) That the accused threatened some person.
(ii) That such threat consisted of some injury to his
person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation
or property of some one in whom he was interested;
(iii) That he did so with intent to cause alarm to that
person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was
not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was
legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of
such threat.” A plain reading of the allegations in the
complaint does not satisfy all the ingredients as noticed
above.”
5.15 In Mohammad Wajid and Another (supra), relied upon
by the learned advocate for the applicants, it is held as under:
“26. 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 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. In King Emperor v. Chunnibhai Dayabhai, (1902) 4
Bom LR 78, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed
Page 17 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
out that:-
“To constitute an offence under Section 504, I.P.C. it is
sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause the
other party to lose his temper and say or do something
violent. Public peace can be broken by angry words as well
as deeds.”
(Emphasis supplied)
27. A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it clear that a
part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an offence of
criminal intimidation is made out, it must be established that the
accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant.
28. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more
particularly, considering the nature of the allegations levelled in
the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence punishable
under Section 506 of the IPC may probably could be said to have
been disclosed but not under Section 504 of the IPC. The
allegations with respect to the offence punishable under Section
504 of the IPC can also be looked at from a different perspective. In
the FIR, all that the first informant has stated is that abusive
language was used by the accused persons. What exactly was
uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in the FIR. One of the
essential elements, as discussed above, constituting an offence
under Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have been an act
or conduct amounting to intentional insult. Where that act is the
use of the abusive words, it is necessary to know what those words
were in order to decide whether the use of those words amounted to
intentional insult. In the absence of these words, it is not possible
to decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult is present.”
5.16 Thus, 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
Page 18 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026
R/CR.MA/12214/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2026
to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.
Further, in view of definitions of Criminal Intimidation under
Section 503 of the IPC, in order to make out an offence of
Criminal Intimidation, punishable under Section 506(2) of the IPC,
that it must be established that the accused had an intention to
cause alarm to the complainant and that, mere threats given by
the accused, without any intention to cause alarm to the
complainant, would not constitute the offence of Criminal
Intimidation. The said basic ingredients and predominant
requirement to establish or to constitute an offence punishable
under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC regarding intentional
insult with intention to provoke breach of peace and the intention
to cause alarm to the complainant by such threat, are
conspicuously absent in the present case.
6. In view of the above, the captioned petition stands allowed.
The impugned FIR being I- CR No. 11187002200761 of 2020 filed
against them by the Respondent No. 2- Original Complainant on
10.07.2020 at Balasinor Police Station, District Mahisagar, under
Section 306, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC, along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the present
petitioners, stands quashed and set aside.
7. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MMP
Page 19 of 19
Uploaded by MR.MAHENDRA MOHANBHAI PUROHIT(HCD0074) on Thu Jul 23 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 23 17:09:24 IST 2026