JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the proceedings of First Information Report in Crime No.105 of 2020 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as against the petitioners herein.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent.

2. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.105 of 2020 registered on the file of the first respondent for the offence under Section 291 of I.P.C.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were found uttering filthy words in a public place and that when the police patrol directed them to disperse, they defied the directive and continued to commit public nuisance. Hence, based on the information lodged by the jurisdictional Sub Inspector of Police, the impugned FIR was registered.

4. Section 290 of IPC is a non-cognizable offence. As per Section 155(2) of Cr.PC, no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. The informant in a non-cognizable case has to be referred to the Magistrate. On the other hand, Section 291 of IPC is a cognizable offence and an FIR can be registered without an order from the jurisdictional Magistrate.

5. The question that arises for consideration is whether the acts attributed to the petitioners can be said to attract the offence under Section 291 of IPC. One of the very few cases on the subject is the one reported in ILR (1886) 8 ALL 99 (Queen- Empress vs. Jokhu). It was held by His Lordship Mr.Justice Oldfield that to support a conviction under Section 291 of the Penal Code, there must be proof of an injunction to the accused individually against repeating or continuing the same particular public nuisance. It must be shown that the person convicted had on some previous occasion committed the particular nuisance, had been enjoined not to repeat or continue it, and had repeated or continued it. The authority under which a Magistrate can order or enjoin a person against repeating or continuing a public nuisance is Section 143 of the Criminal Procedure Code; and it is the infringement of this order or injunction that is punishable under Section 291 of the Indian Penal Code; and it is clear that what is contemplated is an order addressed to a particular person (see Schedule V, Form 20). Of course, Justice Oldfield was referring to what is now the old 1898 Code.

6. Section 143 of the old Code was as follows:

“A District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate, or any other Magistrate empowered by the Local Government or the District Magistrate in this behalf, may order any person not to repeat or continue a public nuisance, as defined in the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860) or any special or local law.”

When it was suggested that a penalty should be prescribed for disobedience of an order under Section 143, the Law Commission of India in its 37th Report (1968) felt that the provisions of Section 291 of IPC are enough. Interestingly, Section 143 of the new Code is also almost identically worded. It is therefore safe to conclude that Section 291 can be invoked only for breach of the order passed under Section 143 of Cr.PC.

7. Section 291 of IPC is as follows:

“Whoever repeats or continues a public nuisance, having been enjoined by any public servant who has lawful authority to issue such injunction not to repeat or continue such nuisance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.”

Chapter X (B) of Cr.PC contains provisions relating to public nuisances. The Executive Magistrate has been conferred with power and jurisdiction to deal with them. Section 291 of IPC employs the expression “enjoined by any public servant who has lawful authority to issue such injunction not to repeat or continue such nuisa