Back
KARDAK ETE
Goto Kamdak, S/o. Shri Ego Kamdak – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. , Represented by the Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
[Kardak Ete, J.]
Heard Mr. T. Gyatso, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional PP for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. None appears for the respondent No. 2 though the service of notice is shown to be completed.
2. This application under section 482 of Cr.PC, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the GR case no. 23/2021 under section 294 IPC, 1860 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo.
3. The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is that the respondent no. 2 namely Smti. Bomyir Kamdak had lodged an FIR on 25.12.2020 before the OC PS Basar alleging that on the night of 23.12.2020 at around 2130 hrs approximately, someone threw stones over her rooftop repeatedly and created nuisance. When she along with her husband came out from the house, the petitioner along with Jumi Kamdak, Kare Kamdak, Jumge Kamdak were found available at the spot with their vehicle. On asking as to why they threw stones, the petitioner uttered abusive words to her openly in front of his accomplices and her husband and outraged her prestige and modesty and defamed her by imputing her without any reason.
4. Upon receipt of the FIR, the
To establish an offence under Section 294 IPC, it is essential to prove that the words used were obscene, uttered in a public place, and caused annoyance to others, which was not demonstrated in this....
The Court clarified the application of obscenity in verbal abuse under IPC and upheld charges of criminal trespass.
Obscenity – In order to satisfy definition of obscenity to attract Section 294(b) of IPC, words uttered must be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in minds of its hearers – Quashment of cri....
Allegations lacking obscene words do not constitute Section 294(b) IPC offence; proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process.
To constitute an offense under Section 294(b) of the IPC, the words or acts must be obscene and cause annoyance to others; mere abusive language does not suffice to meet the threshold of obscenity.
For conviction under Section 294(b) IPC, prosecution must prove obscenity and public annoyance; failure to establish these elements leads to quashing of case motivated by personal grievances.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
