- (1.)The present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code' for short) to quash and set aside the complaint at Annexure 'A' being Criminal Case No. 1125 of 2003 pending before the Court of learned JMFC, Gandhinagar and summons/process issued therein under Sec-tion 504 of IPC qua the present petitioner.
(2.)The aforesaid complaint, being Criminal Case No.1125 of 2003, was instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 170,216(A), 218,219, 419, 420,455, 504, 506(2) and 114 read with Section 34 of IPC against total five accused persons. The petitioner herein is ac-cused No.4, against whom summons/process under Section 504 of IPC has been issued.
(3.)Learned Advocate Shri Hardik A Dave for the petitioner has pointed out facts stated in Para 4 of the petition and submitted that the peti-tioner is accused No.4 in the complaint filed by Girdharibhai Khataumal Chandak Respondent No.2 herein. The allegations made in the com-plaint dated 28.1.2003 against the presentpeti-tioner are with regard to use of abusive language after having called him (complainant) in the police station. On the basis of this complaint, the learned JMFC has passed an order for issu-ance of process under Section 504 of IPC against the petitioner "accused No.4. It is submitted that the averments made in Para 4 of the complaint do not constitute an offence under Section 504 of IPC. Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to Section 504 of IPC and submitted that from the allegations made against the peti-tioner in the complaint, none of the ingredients are emerged so as to attract the requirement of Section 504 of IPC. However, the learned JMFC, Gandhinagar has issued process against the present petitioner/accused No.4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner made following sub-missions:
3.1 That looking into the allegations against the petitioner and taking the same to be true, it is stated that the petitioner has. used abusive lan-guage against the complainant/respondent No.2 herein after calling the. Respondent No.2 to Pethapur Police Station.. It is respectfully sub-mitted that in the instant case cognizance of the offence against the present petitioner would re-quire previous sanction of the State Government under Section 197 of the Code.

3.2 That the JMFC has wrongly placed reli-ance on the decision of the Mumbai High Court G P Pedke v. Syed Javed Ali, 1991 CrLJ 1481 and has wrongly held that sanction would not be required to pros-ecute the petitioner in the instant case.

3.3 That the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in a catena of decisions held that sanction as re-quired under Section 197 of the Code is man-datory and that the Magistrate cannot take cog-nizance of the offences against public servants without the necessary sanction. In this context, it is submitted that it is now well settled that Section 197 of the Code culls out an exception to Section 190 of the Code and no Court can take cognizance under Section 190 of the Code if the offence is alleged against a public servant without sanction as envisaged under Section 197 of the Code. Thus, the learned Judge has erred in considering the mandatory requirement of Section 197 and failed to consider in its true perspective.

3.4 It is respectfully submitted that the ingre-dients of Section 504 of IPC are intentional in-sult and provocation intending and knowing that such provocation would cause a person to break public peace or to commit any other offence and therefore, even otherwise no offence much less an offence under Section 504 of IPC can be said to be made out against the present petitioner.

3.5 That in the instant case, even if all the. averments as stated in the complaint are taken to be completely true, then also it cannot be said that the petitioner has intentionally insulted and given provocation to the present complainant Respondent No.2 as would cause him to break public peace or to commit any other offence. It is respectfully submitted that the mens rea in the said case is missing as by no stretch of imagi-nation can it be said that the provocation given by the present petitioner was sufficient to cause or to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.

3.6 That it is well settled in a catena of judg-ments that for an offence under Section 504 of IPC, it is very necessary for the complainant to state the exact words which were used by the accused so that the Court may know whether the words used for the insults were sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 504 of IPC. In the instant case, the words used by the present petitioner are not stated in the complaint and therefore, the essential ingredient of a complaint under Section 504 of IPC is missing.

3.7 That several Courts have quashed com-plaints under Section 504 of IPC only on the ground that the words used by the accused have not been stated in the complaint and therefore, whether the words or the insults would be suffi-cient to constitute an offence under Section 504 of IPC cannot be inferred.

3.8 Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the following judg-ments in support of his arguments:

(i) Prem Pal Singh v. Mohan LaI, 1981 CrLJ 1208.

(ii) Jodh Singh v. State of U.P., 1991 CrLJ 3226.

(iii) Amitabh Adhar v. NCT of Delhi, 2000 CrLJ 4772.