The mere use of abusive language does not constitute obscenity under IPC unless it arouses sexual thoughts; allegations of rash driving and obstruction of duty were upheld.

O R D E R

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.768/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Initially, the crime was registered against the petitioners by the Museum Police Station as Crime No.414/2018, alleging offences punishable under sections 294(b) and 279 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ), Section 117 (e) of the Kerala Police Act and under Sections 129 , 115 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act . After registration of the said crime, FIR and the connected records were transmitted to the Cantonment Police Station as it was found that the place of occurrence was within the jurisdiction of the said police station.

3. Accordingly, the said FIR was re-registered by the Cantonment Police as Crime No.509/2018 for the offences referred to above. After completing the investigation, Annexure-D final report was submitted by the Police before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- III, Thiruvananthapuram and the cognizance thereon was taken as C.C.No.768/2018.

4. The allegations raised against the petitioners are as follows:

On 13.04.2018 at 12.35 a.m., while the defacto complainant, a police officer, was checking the vehicles at the Bakery Junction, Thiruvananthapuram, as part of his official duties, he found the accused persons travelling on a motorcycle towards Palayam. They were riding the motorcycle at excessive speed without wearing helmets. They were asked to stop the vehicle and to produce the records for verification. Thereupon, it was found that, there was no pollution certificate. Therefore, they were asked to pay a fine for not wearing helmets and the other irregularities found. However, the 1 st accused, the person who was riding the motorcycle, hurled abuses and quarrelled with the Sub Inspector of Police by uttering abusive words. They also refused to pay a fine, and thereby, they obstructed the official duty of the defacto complainant. The crime was registered in such circumstances. This Crl.M.C. was filed by the petitioners for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to the Annexure-D final report submitted against them.

5. Heard Sri. Shajin S.Hameed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Sreeja V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the State.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, they are innocent of all the allegations and that they were falsely implicated in this case because, the petitioners did not heed to the demand of the defacto complainant to pay the amount demanded by him. It was further contended that none of the offences would be attracted even if all the allegations against the petitioners were accepted for its face value.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposes the contentions raised by the petitioners by pointing out that the contentions raised by the petitioners are matters to be considered during the course of the trial, being questions of fact. Therefore, the dismissal of the Crl.M.C. was sought.

8. I have carefully gone through the records. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerning the offence under section 294(b) of IPC . As per the allegations, when the petitioners were asked to stop the vehicle by the defacto complainant, the person who was riding the motorcycle threatened the defacto complainant and humiliated him by using abusive words. The words used/extracted in the FIS are as follows:

“fine അട᪚❙ാൻസൗകര്യമില്ലെടാമൈരേ നിന്ᨪ്വല്ലതുംചെ്ᩞാനുണ്ടെ്ᨮിൽ പോയിചെ്ᩞടാമൈരേ "

The specific contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the said words would not attract the offence under section 294(b) of IPC . The learned counsel for the petitioners also places reliance upon the decisions rendered by this Court in Latheef v. State of Kerala [ 2014(2)KLT 987 ] , Sajan C.K. v. State of Kerala