Mere vague allegations of beating without evidence of medical treatment or injury fail to attract Section 323 IPC.

The petitioners, the elder brother-in-law (Petitioner No. 1) and father-in-law (Petitioner No. 2) of the complainant, sought to quash a criminal proceeding arising from Complaint Case No. 344 of 2020.

The complainant alleged that the petitioners committed "marpit" (beating) against her.

By an order dated 27.06.2022, the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Palamau, found a prima facie case against the petitioners for offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The petitioners moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., arguing that the allegations, even if true, failed to constitute the alleged offences.

1. Whether the mere allegation of “beating,” in the absence of medical evidence or specific injury, is sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 323 of the IPC.

2. Whether the allegations met the essential ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC regarding provocation and breach of peace.

3. Whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of law.

Section 323 of the IPC requires the voluntary causing of "bodily pain, disease or infirmity".

Section 504 of the IPC necessitates an intentional insult intended to provide provocation for a breach of peace.

The precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek Saxena vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2023 INSC 1088) held that a vague statement of being beaten, without medical treatment or an injury report, is insufficient to sustain a charge under Section 323.

The Court observed that for Section 323 IPC to be attracted, there must be evidence of bodily pain or infirmity.

In this case, there was no material suggesting the complainant sought medical treatment or that an injury report existed; thus, following the Abhishek Saxena precedent, the "beating" allegation was found legally insufficient.

Regarding Section 504 IPC, the Court noted that the complaint lacked any allegation that the petitioners intended to provoke the victim into committing a breach of peace or any other offence.

Consequently, even if the facts were accepted as true, the legal requirements for the charged sections were not met.

The Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the cognizance order dated 27.06.2022 in Complaint Case No. 344 of 2020.