Mere Performance Of Obscene Or Indecent Act Not Sufficient To Attract Offence U/S 294 IPC; Must Establish 'Annoyance To Others': Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court observed that as per Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), mere performance of obscene or indecent act is not sufficient, but there must be a further proof establish that it was to the annoyance of other

The court added that the issue of "obscenity or indecency per se" will not arise until or unless there is evidence on record to see that a person at a given time witnessing particular obscene act was actually annoyed or not.

The Lucknow Bench observed thus in an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking quashing of summoning order of the Civil Judge.

A Single Bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed held, “… it is clear that mere performance of obscene or indecent act is not sufficient, but there must be a further proof establish that it was to the annoyance of others, thereby annoyance to others is essential to constitute an offence under this section. Moreso, when the said section says "annoyance to others" is a prerequisite to invoke the provision, then the issue of "obscenity or indecency per se" will not arise until or unless there is evidence on record to see that a person at a given time witnessing particular obscene act was actually annoyed or not. He further submitted that none of the female have been examined to establish that the alleged act of passing obscene comment upon the passing females have caused them annoyance and in absence of such evidence the impugned charge-sheet and summoning order are devoid of any merit and gross abuse of process of law.”

The Bench noted that the object and scope of Section 294 of IPC is intended to prevent an obscene or indecent act being performed in public to the annoyance of public at large.

Advocate Sudhanshu S. Tripathi represented the applicant while AGA Ashok Kumar Singh represented the opposite parties.

In this case, the applicant sought quashing of the summoning order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division (F.T.C.) Unnao in a criminal case arising under Section 294 of IPC. The police was patrolling within their jurisdiction for prevention of crime and got information from the reliable informer that three persons were doing obscene acts against the passing women of the area. Hence, the applicant was caught red-handed and then an FIR was registered against him. It was alleged that he was passing obscene comments on the females, who were passing by from Jumka Nala bridge.

The High Court in view of the above facts said, “… the instant case is a gross misuse of penal laws in particular and criminal law in general since no criminal offence is made out from the perusal of aforesaid facts and the impugned summoning order has been passed in an arbitrary manner without giving consideration to the material on record and lack of due application of judicial mind.”

The Court further said that the impugned summoning order is liable to be quashed as the investigation of the case has been conducted in a tainted, botched-up, and hasty manner by the police merely in order to show up the good work and proceeded to make out a false, fabricated and concocted case by falsely implicating the applicant. It added that the police completely ignored the mandatory provisions of criminal law.

“The haste in finalizing the investigation in the instant case is evident from the fact that within a week after registration of the FIR, the impugned charge-sheet was filed wherein only the statement of members of police party on one day and on another day site plan was prepared and statement of the informant was recorded and neither any independent witness was examined nor any females were examined, who were being annoyed by the alleged obscene comments of the applicant”, it also observed.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the summoning order.

Cause Title- Monu Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:40950)

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocates Sudhanshu S. Tripathi and Ritwika Tripathi.

Opposite Parties: AGA Ashok Kumar Singh

Click here to read/download the Judgment