Mere abuse, non-alarming threats and a push did not constitute offences under Sections 323, 504 or 506 IPC.

The complainant alleged that, on 2 December 2014, while repair work was being carried out at a house owned by petitioner No. 1, Hemendra Keshrichand Taswala, she requested removal of construction debris. It was alleged that Hemendra abused her, while petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, Mayur and Nikesh, also abused and threatened her and pushed her, causing her to fall.

An FIR, C.R. No. II-747 of 2014, was consequently registered at Athwa Police Station, Surat City, for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC.

The petitioners invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings. They contended that the FIR was a counterblast to an earlier FIR, C.R. No. II-746 of 2014, lodged by petitioner No. 1 against the complainant’s husband and son.

During the proceedings, petitioner No. 1 died on 13 April 2018, and the petition stood abated as against him.

Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings against petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 disclosed the ingredients of offences under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC so as to justify their continuation?

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings on the ground that the dispute was a minor altercation, had been amicably settled, and the FIR was effectively a counterblast to the earlier complaint?

Whether the proceedings against petitioner No. 1 could continue after his death?

The Court exercised the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent continuation of criminal proceedings where the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.

Section 323 IPC applies to voluntarily causing hurt; “hurt” is defined in Section 319 IPC as causing bodily pain, disease or infirmity, while Section 321 IPC defines voluntarily causing hurt.

For Section 504 IPC, intentional insult must be accompanied by an intention or knowledge that it is likely to provoke the person insulted to break the public peace or commit another offence.

Criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC requires a threat intended to cause alarm to the complainant.

The Court also referred to Section 334 IPC, treating hurt caused on grave and sudden provocation as an exception to the offence under Section 323.

Proceedings against a deceased accused abate.

The Court found that the earlier FIR lodged by petitioner No. 1 and the subsequent acquittal of the complainant’s husband and son supported the conclusion that the parties had undergone a minor verbal altercation and had amicably settled the dispute.

The alleged threats did not demonstrate an intention to cause alarm, and therefore the ingredients of criminal intimidation under Section 506 were absent.

Mere abusive language, without material showing an intention to provoke the complainant to breach the peace or commit an offence, did not satisfy Section 504 IPC.

Although the FIR alleged that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 pushed the complainant, the Court held that the alleged act occurred in the context of provocation arising from the earlier altercation and fell within the exception contemplated by Section 334 IPC; consequently, the offence under Section 323 was not made out.

In these circumstances, continuation of the proceedings would serve no legal purpose, warranting exercise of the Court’s powers under Section 482 CrPC.

The proceedings stood abated qua petitioner No. 1, Hemendra Keshrichand Taswala, due to his death.

The FIR, C.R. No. II-747 of 2014, registered at Athwa Police Station, Surat City, and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside qua petitioners Nos. 2 and 3.

The Rule was made absolute to that extent, and direct service was permitted.