To prove an offence under Section 294(b) IPC, mere utterance of obscene words is insufficient; proof of annoyance to others is essential.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.584 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. On carefully going through the complaint given by the 2^nd respondent, it is seen that the 2^nd respondent is working as an Advocate Clerk in Saidapet and he claims to be a tenant in the subject property. According to the 2^nd respondent, steps were taken to evict him from the property. Hence, he instituted a Civil Suit and Decree was also passed in his favour. While so, the accused persons, who are his neighbours caused threat to the 2^nd respondent and was abusing him in filthy language and taking efforts to evict him from the property. By considering this complaint, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.584 of 2023 by the 1^st respondent for offence under Section 294 of I.P.C.

4. The 4^th petitioner, who has recently enrolled as an Advocate on

06.07.2023 was unnecessarily roped in this case. In the entire complaint, the 2^nd respondent has not stated as to when this petitioner abused him. He makes a general statement as if the 4^th petitioner abused him in filthy language. He does not even say where that incident took place or as to whether anybody else was present in that place or whether such abuse happened in a public place. Entire attempt of the 2^nd respondent seems to stop the progress of the 4^th petitioner as an Advocate in the profession. Unfortunately, the 1^st respondent without any application of mind had added the 4^th petitioner as an accused in this case. 5. A perusal of the entire documents and the submissions made by the counsel appearing on either side reveals that no offence is made out under Section 294(b) of IPC against the petitioners. In order to to attract the offences under Section 294(b) of IPC, there must be an uttering of words to affect the person who lodged the complaint. In this regard it is relevant to extract the Section 294(b) of IPC, as follows :-

"294. Obscene acts and songs —Whoever, to the annoyance of others— (a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both."

6. Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioners as such to constitute the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there is no averments and allegations. Further the charges do not show that on hearing the obscene words, which were allegedly uttered by the petitioners, the witnesses felt annoyed. No one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the petitioners annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in 1996(1) CTC 470 in the case of K.Jeyaramanuju Vs.

Janakaraj & anr., which held as follows :-

"To prove the offence under Section 294 of IPC mere utterance of obscence words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case."

The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and therefore, the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not at all attracted as against the petitioners.

7. In view of the above, the impugned FIR cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the FIR registered in Crime No.584 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent is hereby quashed.

8. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.