Abusive language does not equate to obscenity unless it arouses sexual thoughts; mere words do not constitute assault or criminal force under IPC.

ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the proceedings in CC No.2270/2015 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur, arising from Crime No.1297/2014 of Paravur Police Station, Kollam District. Above case is charge sheeted against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b) , 353 and 509 of IPC .

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that, on 18.07.2014 at 10.10 PM, the petitioner brought his relative to the casualty department of the hospital and on seeing that the duty doctor and others were eating food in the adjacent room of the casualty, he entered into an altercation with the duty doctor and called her (Nee), by which she " നീ " lost her modesty and due to the same she could not perform her ofÏcial duty for a long time. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. There is no appearance for the 3^rd respondent.

4. According to the petitioner, on 18.07.2014 at 10.10 PM, the petitioner brought his relative patient to the casualty department. On reaching in- front-of the open casualty room, the petitioner saw four ladies were leisurely sitting around a table located in the middle portion of the casualty room after finishing their eatery and talking and laughing in a funny manner. It is submitted that, at that stage, the petitioner made certain verbal altercation. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out against him.

5. This Court perused the final report. The relevant portion of the final report is extracted hereunder:

6. The first offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 294(b). To attract Section 294(b), certain ingredients are necessary. The ingredients of Section 294(b) IPC is considered by the Apex Court and this Court in several decisions. The Apex Court inApoorva Arora v. State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi) [2024 KHC Online 6153] considered the meaning of obscenity. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:

“34. From a plain reading of Section 67 and the material that is characterised as ‘obscene’ therein, it is clear that the High Court posed the wrong question, and it has naturally arrived at a wrong answer. At the outset, the enquiry under Section 292 of the IPC or under Section 67 of the IT Act does not hinge on whether the language or words are decent, or whether they are commonly used in the country. Rather, from the plain language of the provision, the inquiry is to determine whether the content is lascivious, appeals to prurient interests, or tends to deprave and corrupt the minds of those in whose hands it is likely to fall. The High Court embarked on a wrong journey and arrived at the wrong destination.

35. Profanity is not per se obscene: The second threshold error is in the finding of the High Court that the language is full of swear words, profanities, and vulgar expletives that could not be heard in open court and also that it is not the language of the youth. Based on this finding, the High Court has held that the content is obscene as it “will affect and will tend to deprave and corrupt impressionable minds”. In its own words, the High Court held:

“30. …this Court found that the actors/protagonists in the web series are not using the language used in our country i.e. civil language. The Court not only found excessive use of “swear words”, “profane language” and “vulgar expletives” being used, it r