The court clarified that mere profanity does not constitute obscenity under IPC; specific criteria must be met.

ORDER

This Revision is filed against the order dated 11.04.2025 in CMP 1314/2025 in CC 106/2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ernakulam. It is an order passed by the learned Magistrate in a petition filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), seeking discharge of the petitioner.

2. Petitioner is arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No.592/2022 of Mulavukad Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 324 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code . According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offences under and 294(b) Cr. P.C. are not attracted. The learned Magistrate considered the discharge petition and dismissed the same as per the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

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

4. The final report filed in this revision petition is produced as Annexure A1. The relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder.

" ്ᩚതി്ᨪ് ഒ്ᩐാം സാ്ᩌിയെ(cid:15) ദേ(cid:17)ദേ(cid:18)ാപ്ᩖവം ഏൽ്ᩔി്ᨪണയെ(cid:26)ᩐ᪎്ᩦ ഉദേ(cid:30)ശദേ ാടും കരുതദേ$ാടും കൂടി 21.08.2022 തീ(cid:15)തി പകൽ 02:15(cid:26)ണി്ᨪ്' മുളവുകാട്' വിദേ3ജ് യെപാ്ᩐാരി(cid:26)ംഗ$ം, കര(cid:15)ിൽ യെപാ്ᩐാരി(cid:26)ംഗ$ം പ്ᩦി്ᨪ് സ(cid:26)ീപം യെപാ്ᩐാരി(cid:26)ംഗ$ം മുളവുകാട് ദേ8ാർ ് ദേ:ാഡിൻയെ= യെതᨪ᪎വടᨪ᪎കിഴᨪ᪎വശ ് 8ിൽᨪ᪎്ᩐVNBM כ എ്ᩐ് 143- o 8്ᩘർ ഇ്ᨾിരിᨪ᪎്ᩐ ഇ$᪚❤ി്ᨪ് ദേപാ᪚➚ിൻയെ= ചുവ്ᨾിൽ 8ിᩐ᪎ം 166 (cid:26)ീ=ർ യെതᨪ᪎പടി്ᨼാറു (cid:26)ാ:ിയും ടി

כ ദേപാ᪚➚ിൻയെ= യെത്ᨪ് (cid:26)ാ:ികാണു്ᩐ VNBM എ്ᩐ് 144- o 8്ᩘർ ഇ്ᨾിരിᨪ᪎്ᩐ ദേകാൺ്ᩅീ=് ഇ$ടിക് ദേപാ᪚➚ിൻയെ= ചുവ്ᨾിൽ 8ിᩐ᪎ം 37 (cid:26)ീ=ർ വട്ᨪ് പടി്ᨼാറു(cid:26)ാ:ിയും ടി ദേ:ാഡിൽ 8ിᩐ᪎ം 2 (cid:26)ീ=ർ ദേ8യെരയും കാണു്ᩐ ടാർദേ:ാഡുഭാഗ ് വ്ᨴ് ആവ$ാതി്ᨪാരൻയെ= അ(cid:15)ൽവാസി(cid:15)ാ(cid:15)ി ്ᩚതി അ്ᩨീ$ ആംഗ്യം കാണി്ᨴത് ദേ^ാ(cid:17)്യം യെ^്ᩓതിൻയെ= വിദേരാധ ാൽ ്ᩚതി കൈക വശമു്ᩂാ(cid:15)ിരു്ᩐ യെ(cid:18)ൽ(cid:26)=് വ്ᨴ് മുഖ ടി്ᨴതിൽ വ്ᨴ് മൂ്ᨪി8് ^തവും, ചു്ᩂിനും പ3ിനും ദേവ(cid:17)8യും, (cid:26)=് പരിᨪ᪎ം മുഖ ി8് 8ീരും വരുവാൻ ഇട(cid:15)ാ്ᨪി എ:ണാകുളം ജ8:ൽ ആശുപ്ᩔി(cid:15)ിൽ ^ികി്ᩜ ദേതടാൻ ഇട(cid:15)ാ്ᨪി(cid:15)തി8് ്ᩚതി 324, 294(b) IPC ്ᩚകാരമു്ᩦ കു=്ᩅത്യം യെ^്ᩓിᨾ᪎്ᩦതാ(cid:15)ി

യെവളിവാ(cid:15)ിᨾ᪎്ᩦതാണ്."

5. The first offence alleged is under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code . I am not in a position to say that the above allegation will not attract the ingredients of of the prima facie. The contention raised by the petitioner is to be raised before the trial court by adducing appropriate evidence and by cross-examining the witnesses. The contention raised by the petitioner regarding the maintainability of of the is left open, and the petitioner can raise the same before the trial court at the appropriate stage.

6. To attract Section 294 (b) of the Indian Penal Code , certain ingredients are necessary. The ingredients of (b) IPC are 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 ten