1 apl1901.25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1901 OF 2025 1. Amar Baburao Sable Aged about 45 years, Occ: In-charge Secretary, APMC, Anjangaon Surji, R/o Village Dahigaon Recha, Anjangaon Surji, Dist. Amravati. 2. Shankarrao Dhannuji Chore Aged about 78 years, Occ: Director APMC, Anjangaon Surji, R/o Moti Mahal Colony, Anjangaon Surji, Dist. Amravati. ...APPLICANTS ...V E R S U S... 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Anjangaon Surji, Tq. Anjangaon Surji, Dist. Amravati. 2. Gajanan Valmikrao Navghare Aged about 49 years, Occ: Service, R/o Yash Nagar, Anjangaon Surji, Tq. Anjangaon, Dist. Amravati. ...NON-APPLICANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Vipul Bhise, Advocate for applicants. Shri A.G. Mate, APP for non-applicant no.1/State. Shri Nilesh Gawande, Advocate for non-applicant no.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATE :- 03.09.2026 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The applicants seek quashing of the First Information Report bearing Crime No.376/2025 dated 02.08.2025 registered 2026:BHC-NAG:11857-DB 2 apl1901.25.odt with Police Station, Anjangaon Surji, District Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and Charge-sheet No.123/2025 dated 26.09.2025 as well as consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR. 3. The FIR indicates that non-applicant no.2/complainant is working as Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Anjangaon Surji. Whereas, applicant no.1 is the in-charge Secretary and applicant no.2 is the Director of APMC, Anjangaon Surji. On 07.07.2025 at about 04.00 to 05.30 pm, when non-applicant no.2 was sitting in his chamber and was doing his work in respect of a departmental enquiry, co-accused – Amol Himmatrao Pote came there, snatched the documents and abused non-applicant no.2 in the name of his mother. He also snatched the mobile phone of non-applicant no.2. Whereas, other co-accused – Jayant Sable inspected the bag of non-applicant no.2, abused him in filthy language and threatened him for his life. It is alleged that applicant no.1 – Amar Sable forcibly and under coercion, took the signature of non-applicant no.2 on a blank paper. When he refused to sign the same, applicant nos.1 and 2 alongwith other the co-accused charged on the person of non- 3 apl1901.25.odt applicant no.2 and threatened him for his life. Therefore, on the complaint of non-applicant No.2, the aforesaid offences came to be registered against the applicants and other co-accused. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for non applicant No.1/ State. Perused the charge-sheet. 5. The primary allegations levelled in the FIR are under Sections 296 and 351(2) of the BNS which read as under: “296. 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 which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both”. 351. (1) Whoever threatens another by any means, with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. (2) Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 4 apl1901.25.odt 6. It appears from the reading of Section 296 of the BNS that if any person does any obscene act in any public place or sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words in or near any public place, which causes annoyance to others, he will be guilty of the offence. 7. The test of obscenity has been explained in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.S. Madhanagopal and another Vs. K. Lalitha reported in (2022) 17 SCC 818, wherein it has been observed that the test of obscenity is the substantial tendency to corrupt those minds which are open to such immoral influences. This test has been followed in India and was recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court way back in the year 1964 in the decision in the case of Ranjit D. Udeshi Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1964 SCC Online SC 52 by observing that the test of obscenity is whether the matter has the substantial tendency to corrupt those minds which are open to such immoral influences, by arousing lustful desires, which corrupt thoughts. 8. It will be appropriate to make a reference to another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2026) 2 SCC 622, wherein it has been observed that the absence 5 apl1901.25.odt of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamatory words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC. The Supreme Court has observed that mere utterance of obscene words is not sufficient, there must be further proof to establish that it caused annoyance to others. 9. It appears that the allegations of abuse are attributed to co-accused – Amol Pote and Jayant Sable. For the sake of argument, even if it is presumed that the applicants in connivance with the other co-accused, abused non-applicant no.2 in filthy language, even then no offence whatsoever under Section 296 is made out against the present applicants as the words uttered do not have the tendency to corrupt those minds which are open to such immoral influences, by arousing lustful desires, which corrupt thoughts. 10. Here, in the present case, there is no allegation of obscenity by virtue of which the applicants corrupted the mind of non-applicant no.2 to such immoral influences. Besides that, even if it is presumed that the applicants used abusive language, there is nothing on record to suggest that it caused annoyance to anybody. 6 apl1901.25.odt Therefore, it is difficult to hold that there exists any material whatsoever against the applicants to attract the offence under Section 296 of the BNS. 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 351(2) of the BNS is concerned, the material on record prima facie discloses the allegations that the applicants threatened non- applicant no.2 for his life. However, it is pertinent to note that the said offence is non-cognizable in nature and therefore, the police could not have undertaken an investigation without obtaining a prior order from the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. Once the offence under Section 296 of the BNS is excluded, the FIR does not prima facie disclose any other cognizable offence. 12. The case of the applicants is covered under Clause (4) of Para 102 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported at (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it has been observed that where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as 7 apl1901.25.odt contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. The High Court can exercise its extraordinary powers to quash the FIR. 13. Therefore, without adverting into further details, I am of the view that continuation of prosecution against the applicants would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, this order : (i) The application is allowed. (ii) First Information Report bearing Crime No.376/2025 dated 02.08.2025 registered with Police Station, Anjangaon Surji, District Amravati for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Charge-sheet No.123/2025 dated 26.09.2025 as well as consequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR are hereby quashed and set aside. (M.W. CHANDWANI J.) Wagh Signed by: Mr. S.R. Wagh Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 08/09/2026 10:42:49