9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Concern over incident in a flat leading to complaint u/s 294 and 504 IPC.
Details of the Judgment: 1. Background of the Case: Incident in Flat No. 5, 2nd Floor, Goolestan, Mumbai, led to a complaint u/s 294 and 504 IPC by the sister-in-law of the accused, who alleged unlawful acts by the accused to push her out of the flat. 2. Criminal Revision Application: Appellant challenged the order issuing process u/s 504 IPC, contending lack of specifics in the complaint to show how the accused provoked the complainant. Allegation of improper understanding of Section 202 CrPC by the Magistrate was raised. 3. Contentions: Complainant argued that the complaint contained sufficient material to establish the offence u/s 504 IPC. Emphasized that verbatim reproduction of words spoken by the accused was not necessary for establishing a prima facie case. 4. Judicial Review: Additional Sessions Judge and High Court found no merit in the application for quashing proceedings u/s 504 IPC. The accused appealed against these decisions. 5. Legal Analysis: Section 504 IPC requires intentional insult leading to provocation for breach of peace or other offence. The intentional insult must be of a degree to provoke such actions. The law does not mandate verbatim reproduction of words in the complaint. 6. Court's Decision: The Court emphasized that at the complaint stage, the Magistrate's role is to assess if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. A detailed discussion on the merits of the case is not required. Prima facie case for initiating proceedings u/s 504 IPC was found based on the complaint's contents. 7. Conclusion: The Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the appeal without expressing an opinion on the case's merits.
|
