SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26716

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
SABIR M I – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 914 OF 2026|CRIME NO.558/2023|CC NO.35 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.MANUMON A.,SHRI.REBIN VINCENT GRALAN,SHRI.SURESH C.,SHRI.SANTHOSH.T.P,SMT.ROSNA M. JOY,SMT.GAYATHRI E.S.,SHRI.AVIN KRISHNA M.P.,SMT.ATHIRA SURESH,SHRI.JOHN CHRISTO T.P.,SHRI.AKSHAY KUMAR C.S.,SMT.LINIYA LOVESON,SMT.ANJALI N.S.
For the Respondents: SR. PP. SMT. BINDU.O.V

Allegations lacking obscene words do not constitute Section 294(b) IPC offence; proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process.

Headnote:The petition under Section 528 BNSS sought quashing of proceedings under Section 294(b) IPC for alleged use of filthy words at a political convention on 06.08.2023. Court found the alleged words lacked obscenity as per FI statement. No offence made out, warranting quashing to prevent abuse of process. Issue: Whether allegations constitute Section 294(b) IPC offence. Ratio: Words used do not qualify as obscene; proceedings abuse process if continued without ingredients of offence. Crl.M.C allowed; all further proceedings in C.C.No.35/2023 quashed under Section 528 BNSS.

Table of Content
1. fir for obscene act and words, later limited to non-obscene abuse. (Para 1 , 2 , 5)
2. petitioner's plea for quashing opposed by prosecutor. (Para 3 , 4)
3. alleged words not obscene, no section 294(b) offence. (Para 6)

ORDER

Dated this the 06th day of April, 2026 The accused in C.C.No.35/2023 pending before the Grama Nyayalaya, Pazhayannur, Thrissur arising out of Crime No.558/2023 of Chelakkara police station, filed this Crl.M.C. under Section 528 of BNSS , praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 294 (b) of IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that on 06.08.2023 at about 11.00 a.m. at the ASLP School Chelakode while a convention of a political party was going on, the accused allegedly abused the defacto complainant using filthy words.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if the entire allegations leveled against the petitioner are believed as such, the same will not constitute the offence punishable under Section 294 (b) of IPC . Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served on the defacto complainant/3rd respondent, she did not turn up.

5. Originally the FIR was registered under Section 354 & 294(b) of IPC . When the final report was filed the police omitted 354 and included only 294(b) .

6. On a perusal of the FI Statement, it can be seen that the allegation is to the effect that the accused abused her using filthy words. The words allegedly used by the petitioner does not contain any obscene words. In the above circumstances, the allegations leveled against the petitioner will not make out the offence punishable under Section 294 (b) of IPC . Therefore, there is no meaning in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner as the same will only be an abuse of the process of the court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top