FIONA SHRIKHANDE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2013] 9 S.C.R. 240 · Decided: 22-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 240 
FIONA SHRIKHANDE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1231 of 2013) 
AUGUST 22, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
c 
s. 202 -Complaint - Order of Magistrate taking 
cognizance and issuing process against accused -
Challenged - Held: Scope of enquiry u/s 202 is extremely 
limited in the sense that the Magistrate, at this stage, is 
expected to examine prima facie the truth or falsehood of 
0 
allegations made in the complaint -- He is not expected to 
embark upon a detailed discussion of merits or demerits of 
the case, but only to consider inherent probabilities apparent 
on the statement made in the complaint -- Once the 
Magistrate has exercised his discretion in forming an opinion 
that there is ground for proceeding, it is not for higher courts 
E to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate -- In 
the instant case, the complaint discloses a prima facie case 
made out for initiating proceedings for the offence punishable 
u/s 504 /PC - Penal Code, 1860 - s.504. 
F 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
s. 504 - Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of 
peace - Ingredients - Explained. 
Respondent no. 2, filed a complaint case against her 
G sister-in-law (accused-appellant) stating that the latter 
entered the Puja room and proceeded to drag the 
:oevara' out in such a manner that all its frames were 
dislodged and idols of 'Kula Devatas' along with the lamp 
H 
240 
FIONA SHRIKHANDE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 241 
lit therein fell to the floor. It was stated that the accused 
A 
did this with the delibera.te intention of wounding the 
religious feelings of the complainant and her husband. 
The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate found a 
prima facie case to take cognizance of offence 
. punishable u/s 504 IPC against the appellant and issued . B 
process to her. The revisional court and the High Court 
declined to interfere. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: 1. At the complaint stage, the scope of C 
enquiry u/s 202 Cr. P. C. is extremely limited in the sense 
that the Magistrate, at this stage, is expected to examine 
prima facie the truth or falsehood of the allegations made 
in the complaint. Magistrate is not expected to embark 
upon a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of D 
the case, but only consider the inherent probabilities 
apparent on the statement made in the complaint. The 
Magistrate has to decide the question purely from the 
point of view of the complaint, without at all adverting to 
any defence that the accused may have. Once the 
E 
Magistrate has exercised his discretion in forming an 
opinion that there is ground for proceeding, it is not for 
the higher courts to substitute its own discretion for that 
of the Magistrate. [Para 11] [246-D-G] 
Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and 
F 
Others 1976 (0) Suppl. SCR 123 = (1976) 3 sec 736, relied 
on. 
2. The ingredients of s.504, IPC are:· (a) intentional 
insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation 
G 
to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend 
or know that such provocation would cause another to 
break the public peace or to commit any other offence. 
The intentional insult must be of such a degree that 
should provoke a person to break the public peace or to 
H 
242 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 
A commit any other offence. One of the essential elements 
constituting the offence is that there should have been 
an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the 
mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as 
such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction u/ 
B s 504 IPC. In the instant case, a reading of the complaint 
discloses that a prima facie case has been made out for 
initiating proceedings for the offence punishable u/s 504 
IPC. [Para 13 and 15] [247-C-D, E-F; 248-B-C] 
c 
Case Law Reference: 
1976 (0) Suppl. SCR 123 
relied on 
para 11 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1231 of 2013. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.2012 of the 
High. Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2944 of 
2012. 
C.U. Singh, Siddhesh Bhole, Bhargava, V. Desai, Shreyas 
E Mehrotra for the Appellant. 
Uday U. Lalit, Farid F. Karachiwala for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
G 
H 
2. We are, in this case, concerned with an incident which 
happened in Fla
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.