Mere Allegations That Accused Had Abused Without Clarity As To What Obscene Words Were Said Cannot Attract Offence U/s.294 IPC- Madhya Pradesh HC

A Madhya Pradesh High Court Bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal has clarified that when it is not clear in the prosecution’s case as to what obscene words were stated by the accused, then simply stating that the accused had abused, will not be sufficient to attract the rigor of Section 294 of IPC.

In that context, it was said that, "It has to be noted that in the case on hand, the absence of allegations of annoyance and alleged stated words to be obscene words cannot attract the charge under Section 294 of IPC. As it is not clear that as to what obscene words were stated by the applicant mere saying that “गमालदी गललोच ककी” is not sufficient to attract rigor of Section 294 of IPC."

Counsel Ajay Kumar Ojha appeared for the applicant, while Counsel SM Patel appeared for the State.

In this case, the complainants, who are journalists, jointly submitted a written application to the police. In their complaint, they alleged that they had gone to village Bihta for journalistic coverage when the accused verbally abused them. This abusive behavior allegedly occurred due to instigation by an another employee.

The accused also threatened to damage their camera and attempted to physically harm them. In response to this incident, an FIR was registered, and after the investigation was completed, a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class.

The accused challenged the FIR, arguing that even if the allegations were considered in their entirety, the essential elements required for the offenses were not established. Furthermore, the accused claimed that they, along with other officers of the corporation, were working diligently to complete a project of significant public importance. They alleged that the complainants were obstructing this important public work and had filed a false case against them.

The Court held that it was manifestly clear that the legal evidence to constitute an offence under Section 294 of the IPC was missing. In that context, it was said that, "Allegations in the complaint, against the applicant is that he stated that if they came back again, they will be run over by the tractor. Even if, for the sake of argument the above allegations are taken as true even then aforesaid allegations on its face value does not satisfy the necessary ingredients of section 506 of IPC. Section 506 of IPC talks about the criminal intimidation."

Subsequently, the Court allowed the petition and ordered the quashing of the FIR.

Cause Title: Prafulla Kumar Jaiswal vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Click here to read/download the Judgment