LexB.V. RAM KUMAR versus STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 48 : 2025 INSC 194 B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2025) 10 February 2025 [Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether senior’s admonition can be attributed to mean an ‘intentional insult with the intent to provoke’ within the means of s.504, Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.269, 270 and 504 – On 02.02.2022, appellant-Officiating Director of Institute called respondent no.2-complainant to his chamber and reprimanded her in a high-pitched voice for having filed complaints against him to the higher authority – Complainant filed FIR against appellant u/ss.269, 270 and 504, IPC – Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the appellant – Appellant preferred criminal petition u/s.482, CrPC and sought quashing of proceedings – Criminal petition was dismissed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: There is a reasonable expectation on the part of a person, who caters to the affairs at the helm, that his juniors should attend to the professional affairs of the Institute (workplace) with utmost sincerity and dedication – The circumstances that existed during the times of Covid-19 pandemic and the pressure on the medical professionals was multiplied manifold, therefore, it was reasonable for the appellant to contemplate similar expectations from his juniors/associates – The intention behind this was simply to control the perceived indiscipline of the subordinates who were alleged to be shirking from the performance of their duties and were displaying lethargic, lackadaisical and laid-back approach towards the profession – In the facts and circumstances of the present case, appellant’s act of reprimanding the complainant * Author [2025] 3 S.C.R. 49 B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana and Another cannot by any stretch of imagination be treated to be an ‘intentional insult’ meted out to the complainant so as to provoke her to commit breach of peace or any other offence – If the interpretation advanced from the side of prosecution and the complainant is accepted, it may lead to gross misuse of liberty in workplaces – Therefore, senior’s admonition cannot be reasonably attributed to mean an ‘intentional insult with the intent to provoke’ within the means of Section 504, IPC, provided that the admonition relates to the matters incidental to the workplace covering discipline and the discharge of duties therein – The statements recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, it is discernible that the appellant has been roped in the present criminal proceedings on account of his strict demeanour and the tendency to maintain discipline which is reasonably expected of individuals who serve a noble vocation of a medical profession while also serving as the head of the Institution during the difficult time of Covid-19 pandemic – No existence of the necessary ingredients constituting the offences applied in the chargesheet so as to allow further prosecution of the appellant and hence, it is a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant. [Paras 26, 27, 28, 29] Penal Code, 1860 – s.504 – Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace: Held: Section 504, IPC consists of two parts – Firstly, the actus reus being the intentional insult which gives rise to the provocation – Secondly, the mens rea, i.e., the intention or knowledge on the part of the accused that such intentional provocation is likely to cause the person insulted to break public peace or commit any other offence – The animus nocendi in Section 504, IPC is that the accused should ‘intentionally insult’ the other person with the intention or knowledge that the provocation caused by such insult is likely to result in the commission of breach of public peace or any other offence by the person who has been so insulted – The offence is said to be complete once the accused person makes ‘intentional insult’ with the aforesaid mens rea – Hence, intention or knowledge on the part of accused person that his actions of making ‘intentional insult’ have the potential to provoke the person insulted is sine qua non for the commission of the offence under Section 504, IPC. [Paras 22, 23] 50 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992] 3 Supp. SCR 735 : (1992) 1 Supp. SCC 335; Fiona Shrikhande v.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.