Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 40509
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ABDUL MAJEEED T – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 5430/2018
SRI.SANGEETHARAJ.N.R, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Vulgar language does not equate to obscenity under IPC; mere words cannot constitute assault, leading to the quashing of charges.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 294(b) and 353 - Kerala Healthcare Service Persons And Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012 - Quashing of proceedings - The accused allegedly used criminal force against a public servant and uttered obscene words; however, the allegations failed to constitute an offence under the cited sections. (Paras 2, 9, 10, 16)
(B) Obscenity - The court emphasized that vulgarity and profanities do not per se amount to obscenity, referencing several precedents including Apoorva Arora v. State and Sangeetha Lakshmana v. State of Kerala. (Paras 6, 8, 10)
(C) Assault - The court clarified that mere words do not amount to assault, and the allegations did not satisfy the necessary elements of assault as defined under IPC. (Paras 11, 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings alleging offences under IPC and the Kerala Healthcare Act. The prosecution claimed the petitioner used force against a public servant and used obscene language.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations did not meet the criteria for the charges under IPC or the Kerala Act.
Issues: The court addressed whether the allegations constituted offences under IPC Sections 294(b) and 353, and the Kerala Healthcare Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that even if the allegations were accepted, they did not constitute an offence, emphasizing the distinction between vulgarity and obscenity.
Result: Proceedings quashed.
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.649/2017 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna arising out of Crime No.206/2017 of Pandikkad Police Station. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 353 of IPC and also under Section 3 read with 4 of the Kerala Healthcare Service Persons And Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act , 2012.
2. The prosecution case is that on 23.10.2017, at about 9.30 a.m., the accused entered into the Primary Health Centre at Mudikkodu, and thereafter used criminal force against the defacto complainant, the Public Servant, with intend to prevent or deter that person from discharging her duty as such Public Servant and also uttered obsene words against the defacto complainant and other staffs and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out.
3. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. This Court perused Annexure A3 final report, it would be better to extract the allegations against the petitioner in Annexure A3 Final report.
5. The main offences alleged are under Sections 294 (b) and 353 IPC . The alleged words used by the accused are not mentioned in the final report. In the First Information Statement also, the same is not stated except stating that the accused used abusive words. Whether the same attract the offence under Section 294 (b) is questioned.
6. 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 rather found that the web series had a series of such words in one sentence with few Hindi sentences here and there. In the episode in question, there is clear description and reference to a sexually explicit act. The Court had to watch the episodes with the aid of earphones, in the chamber, as the profanity of language used was of the extent that it could not have been heard without shocking or alarming the people around and keeping in mind the decorum of language which is maintained by a common prudeintend meaningnt man whether in professional or public domain or even with family members at home. Most c
