IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that abusive language does not constitute obscenity under IPC unless it arouses lascivious thoughts, and threats must show intent to intimidate to be actionable.

ORDER :

This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed to quash the proceedings in Annexure-A final report which is now pending as CC No.1929/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kalamassery. The above case is chargesheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of the IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused abused the defacto complainant and his wife using filthy language and it was alleged that the petitioner had threatened that she will do away them. The alleged incident was taken place on 30.04.2013 at about 3.30 pm.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I also heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

4. The short point raised by the petitioner is that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Sections 294(b) and 506 (ii) of the IPC is not made out. To consider the above contentions, it will be better to extract the relevant portion of the final report.

5. This Court in Latheef v. State of Kerala (2014 (2) KLT 987 = 2014 (2) KHC 604) considered the ingredients of Section 294(b) IPC. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment.

“5. Abusive words or humiliating words or defamatory words will not as such amount to obscenity as defined under the law. Of course there is no doubt that the words alleged to have been used by the revision petitioner are in fact abusive and humiliating. But to make it obscene, punishable under S.294(b) IPC it must satisfy the definition of obscenity. S.294 IPC does not define obscenity. Being a continuation of the subject dealt with under S.292 IPC the definition of obscenity under 292(1) IPC can be applied in a prosecution under S.294 IPC also. To make punishable, the alleged words must be in a sense lascivious, or it must appeal to the prurient interest, or will deprave and corrupt persons. In P.T. Chacko v. Nainan Chacko reported in (1967 KLT 799 = 1967 KHC 231) this Court held that, “the test of obscenity is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.” In Sangeetha Lakshmana v. State of Kerala reported in (2008 (2) KLT 745 = 2008 (1) KHC 812 : 2008 (1) KLD 339) this Court held thus, “in order to satisfy the test of obscenity, the words alleged to have been uttered must be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the minds of its hearers.” Thus it is quite clear that, to make obscene the alleged words must involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or the words must have the effect of depraving persons, and defiling morals by sex appeal or lustful desires. I find that the words alleged to have been used by the revision petitioner in this case are really abusive and humiliating, but those words cannot be said to be obscene. As already stated, every abusive word or every humiliating word cannot, by itself, be said to be obscene as defined under the Indian Penal Code. I find that the conviction against the revision petitioner under S.294(b) IPC in this case, on the basis of the above words alleged to have been used by him, is liable to be set aside, and the revision petitioner is entitled to be acquitted. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner under S.294(b) IPC in ST No.3810/1998 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittoor are set aside, on the finding in revision that the revision petitioner is not guilty of the offence punishable under S.294(b) IPC. The revision petitioner will stand released from prosecution on acquittal, and the bail bond executed by him will stand discharged.”(underline supplied)

6. Even if the entire allegations in the final report filed against the petitioner are accepted, the offence under Section 294(b) is not attracted.

7. As far as Section 506 is concerned, the Apex Court considered the matter in detail in Ma