The interpretation of obscenity under Section 294 IPC and the requirement for evidence at the initial stage of invoking the law are crucial in determining the merit of a case.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 08.03.2021 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), vide which petitioner s application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. By this petition, petitioner is seeking quashing of the aforesaid order while seeking a direction to SHO police station Jamia Nagar, Delhi to register an FIR on the basis of police complaint for the offences under Sections 294/341/342/499/500/ 504/506/34 IPC.

2. Notice issued.

3. Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State, accepts notice.

4. The grounds putforth in the present petition are that as per the contents of the complaint before the learned MM, a prima facie case of criminal offences punishable under Sections 294/341/342/ 499/500/504/506/34 IPC are made out against the persons, namely, Sahil and Rehana and the matter needs investigation by the police and that for this purpose, registration of FIR is mandatory.

5. Pertinently, petitioner had given a police complaint dated 29.12.2020, at police station Jamia Nagar, Delhi with regard to an incident which allegedly took place on 24.12.2020. It is stated in the complaint that on 24.12.2020, accused Sahil and Rihana Begum along with another lady Gulnaz had suddenly visited his house, though he never liked meeting his clients at the residence but since they had visited his house for the first time, he attended them but warned not to visit his house again. Petitioner had sent a letter to the Mr. Aftab Ali, Advocate representing the accused on the very next day requesting him to direct his clients to not visit his house but again on 29.12.2020, accused Sahil and Rihana Begum visited his house and started quarelling with him and shouting using obscene words, as a result of which large public, including neigbours of petitioner, gathered at the entrance of the building of his house. Petitioner has alleged that the accused persons used words such like tum bahut baimaan vakil ho and abhi tere bare mein masjid me elaan karege . Both the accused insisted petitioner to withdraw the case from the Hon ble Supreme Court. Petitioner has alleged that the accused persons had wrongfully restrained him in the street for 30 minutes and prevented him from entering the building.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that lodging of just NCR in the present case by the police is not enough, both on facts and law. He stated that out of the afore-noted offences, Sections 294/341/34 IPC are cognizable offence and the police is bound to register an FIR. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel relied upon decision of Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P, (2014) 2 SCC 1.

7. Learned counsel submits that at the time of taking cognizance of the offence or at the time of framing of charge, evidence is not required to be gone into minutely nor strict implementation of law has to be done and rejection of petitioner s complaint at the initial stage itself is bad in law. He also submitted that while rejecting to invoke Section 294 IPC, the trial court has misdirected itself in explaining the meaning of obscenity, which is not defined in IPC and it has caused great prejudice to the petitioner, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has supported the impugned order and he submits that it does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and, therefore, this petition is liable to be rejected.

9. I have heard rival contentions raised by counsel representing both the sides and gone through the impugned order and material placed on record.

10. It finds mentioned in the impugned order that petitioner has alleged that the accused persons have uttered the words that petitioner is a dishonest lawyer and according to petitioner, the said words are covered within the ambit of Section 294 IPC, however, the learned trial court did not find to be in agreement with this contention and observed t