The essence of the offence under Section 294(b) IPC and the applicability of the legal position laid down by the Apex Court in Balraj Khanna's case, emphasizing the necessity to state the words uttered and the inclusion of offences without legal basis.

ORDER :

One of the main questions came up for consideration is whether it is necessary to state and re-produce the words uttered by the accused either in the complaint or in the FIS so as to constitute an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. The sole accused came up to quash the FIR and the final report for the offence under Section 353, 294(b) IPC and 117 (e) of K.P.Act on the ground that the words uttered were not re-produced or specifically pleaded in the FIS in order to attract Section 294(b) IPC and took reliance on the decisions rendered by this Court in Sangeetha Lakshmana v. State of Kerala ( 2008(1) KHC 812), Latheef v. State of Kerala (2014(2)KHC 604) and Sajan C.K. v. State of Kerala and Another (2019 KHC 528). Further, it was contended that the offences under Section 353 IPC and 117(e) of K.P.Act were included without any legal basis.

2. The necessity to state the words uttered either in the FIS or in the complaint so as to constitute an offence under Section 294(b) IPC was elaborately considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Preethimon v. State of Kerala (2008 (2) KLT 666) and it was held that a vague or a general statement in the FIR that the accused showered obscene words is not enough to constitute the offence and that the complainant or the first informant as the case may be shall state the words uttered by the accused by relying on Santhilal v. Parameswaran Pillai (1988 (2) KLT SN 74). The relevant portion is extracted below for reference:

“A vague or general statement in the FIR that the accused showered obscene words is not enough to constitute an offence under S.294(b). It is necessary to state the words uttered by the accused. The prosecution would not be justified in bringing in the evidence for the first time the words allegedly spoken to by the accused, when the same is not recorded in the First Information Statement in a case instituted upon police report. The complaint or the FIR as the case may be, shall contain the words spoken to by the accused, which, according to the prosecution, would attract the offence under S.294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. Or else, there is every possibility of evidence being tendered putting forth any words as the prosecution witnesses may wish to put forward improving upon or adding to the allegation in the complaint or FIR causing great prejudice to the accused and depriving his right to have a fair trial.”

3. While dealing with the requirement of re-producing the exact words used or spoken to by the accused in the complaint or in the FIS in order to constitute an offence under Section 499 IPC, the Apex Court in Balraj Khanna and Others v. Moti Ram [(1971) 3 SCC 399], after a detailed deliberations on English decisions and the decisions of the various High Courts-Charles Bhadlaugh and Annie Besant v. The Queen (1878) 3 QBD 607, The Capital and Counties Bank Ltd. v. George Henty and Sons (1882) 7 AC 741, Collins v. Jones (1955) 2 All ER 145, Harris v. Waree (1879) 4 CPD 125, Sarat Chandra Das v. The State (AIR 1952 Ori. 351), Krishnarao v. Firm Radhakisan Ramsahai (ILR 1956 Nag 236 : AIR 1956 Nag. 264), Emperor v. Col. Bholanath (ILR 1951 All 313: AIR 1929 All 1), K.S. Namjundaiah v. Setti Chikka Thippanna (1952 Cr LJ 1633 : AIR 1952 Mys 123) and Dhruba Charan Khandal v. Dinabandhu Patri (AIR 1966 Ori 15), laid down the following :

“ After a consideration of the various decisions referred to above, we are of the opinion that the propositions laid down in English decisions dealing with libel that the actual words alleged to be used must be stated in the indictment cannot be applied on all force when dealing with the cases of defamation by spoken words under Section 499 IPC. It will be highly desirable no doubt if the actual words stated to have been used by an accused and which are alleged to be defamatory are reproduced by the complainant. The actual words used or the statements made may be reproduced verbatim by the complainant if the words are few and the statemen