The use of criminal force necessitates physical action, and abusive comments alone do not equate to obscenity under IPC provisions.

O R D E R

The petitioners are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in C.C. No.1032/2013 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery arising from Crime No.395/2012 of Mulanthuruthy Police Station. It is submitted that the 2nd petitioner who is the 3rd accused is no more. Hence, her case is abated. The above case is charge sheeted alleging offences punishable under Sections 279 , 353 and

294(b) r/w Section 34 of IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that, the accused persons, three in numbers were found traveling in a motor car through a public road and at that time the Sub Inspector of Police, who was in routine trafÏc inspection duty, intercepted the vehicle alleging that the car driven by the 1st accused was in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life. It is alleged that, at that time the 2nd accused attempted to assault the Sub Inspector with his hand. It is also stated that the other accused persons uttered abusive and obscene words against the police personals causing annoyance to them and also hindrance to the discharge of their ofÏcial duty and thereby committed the offence. Annexure-1 is the final report. It is submitted that the 1st accused was also died and only the 1st petitioner, who is the 2nd accused is alive. It is the case of the petitioner that, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out against the 1st petitioner, who is the 2nd accused in this case.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. This Court perused Annexure-A1 final report. It will be beneficial to extract the relevant portion of the final report:

"

ടി ്ᩚതിയും ടി കാറിലെ(cid:12) യാ്ᩔ്ᨪാരായ

2-o, 3-o ്ᩚതികളും കൂടി ടി കാറിൽ നിᩐ᪎ം

ഇറ്ᨲി ടി സാ്ᩌിലെയ സമീപി്ᨴ്ᩔ(cid:31)ാൾ

1-)o 1-)o നിയമാനുസൃതമായി ്ᩚതി്ᩔയാട്

സാ്ᩌി ᩑ᪕%വിംഗ് ᩑ᪕(cid:12)സൻസ് കാണി്ᨪാൻ ആവശ്യലെ(cid:31)്ᨾ്ᩔ(cid:31)ാൾ ടി ്ᩚതി ധി്ᨪാരപൂർവം കാണി്ᨪാൻ സൗകര്യമിലെ2്ᩐ് , xxxx പറയുകയും ത്ᩜമയം ഡയ᪏്ᨾിയിൽ

2-)o ഉ്ᩂായിരു്ᩐ സാ്ᩌി ടി ്ᩚതി്ᩔയാട് ടിയാലെ: ്ᩚവർ്ᩈി നിയമാനുസൃതമലെ2്ᩐ്

2-)o പറ്ᨼതിൽ കുപിതനായ ്ᩚതി താൻ ഒരു ഇ്ᩌ്യൻ പൗരനാലെണᩐ᪎ം മᩢ᪎ം പറᨼ᪎ ടി

സാ്ᩌി്ᨪ് ്ᩔനലെര ᩑ᪕കമു്ᩖി ചുരു്ᨾി

. 3 ഉപ്ᩖവി്ᨪാൻ ്ᩦമിᨴ᪎ തുടർ്ᩐ് ്ᩚതികൾ ്ᩔപരും ്ᩔIർ്ᩐ് ടി സാ്ᩌികലെJ സഭ്യമ2ാ്ᩈ വാᨪ᪎കൾ വിJിᨴ᪎ പറᨼ᪎ മ്ᩔനാവിഷമം

1-)o ്ᩔനരിടുവി(cid:31)ിᨴ᪎ം തുടർᩐ᪎്ᩦ

സാ്ᩌിയുലെടയും മᩢ᪎ം ഔ്ᩔQ്യാഗിക കൃത്യനിർവഹണ്ᩈിന് തട്ᩰം വരു്ᩈി ്ᩚതികൾ ്ᩔമൽ വകുᩔ᪎കൾ ്ᩚകാരമു്ᩦ ശി്ᩌാർഹമായ കു്ᩢകൃത്യം ലെI്ᩓിരിᨪ᪎ᩐ᪎

"

എ്ᩐത്

5. In the final report, it is not specifically stated the abusive words used by the accused. But, in the First Information Statement, it is stated that the 2nd accused attempted to hit the police constable by folding his hand and that the accused persons uttered the words “ , പ്ᨾികലെJ in front of the general എ്ᩐാ ്ᩔകാᩔ᪎ കാണിᨪ᪎ം”

public and drove away in their car. Whether this amounts to an offence under Section 294 (b) and

353 of IPC is the question. As far as Section 279 of is concerned, the allegation is only against the 1st accused, who is no more.

6. InLatheef v. State of Kerala [2014 (2) KLT 987] this Court considered the ingredients to attract Section 294 (b) in detail. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment;

“3. The very short point for decision in this revision is whether the words alleged to have been used by the revision petitioner will constitute obscenity as defined under the law. The abusive words alleged to have been used by the revision petitioner herein are ' .......'Of course as regards പു(cid:12)യാടി ്ᩔമാലെന wrongful restraint and assault the two Courts below found the revision petitioner not guilty, and he stands acquitted. As regards the above words alleged to have been used by the petitioner both the Courts below found that it is obscene. Of course it stands proved by the evidence of PW 1 that the revision petitioner had in fact used such words in the alleged incident. So, much discussion is not required on that aspect. The question for decision in revision is whether those words will amount to obscenity as defined under the law. If the finding is t