1 apl487.24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.487 OF 2024 Syed Mateen Syed Jamir, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o House No.20, Kaynat Cottage, Ganga Nagar, Old City Akola, Pin 444101. ...APPLICANT ...V E R S U S... 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Old City, Akola. 2. Aatif Ali Meer Athar, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Student, R/o Kaynat Apartment, Block No.13, Near Atlas Park, Ganga, Nagar, Akola. ...NON-APPLICANTS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri M.R. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant. Shri Amit Chutke, APP for non-applicant no.1/State. Shri Z.Z. Haq, Advocate for non-applicant no.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM :- N.B. SURYAWANSHI &M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ. DATED :- 16.01.2025. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J.): . Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, heard by consent of the parties. 2. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing of the First Information Report No.0481/2023 lodged by non-applicant no.2 with Old City 2025:BHC-NAG:1317-DB 2 apl487.24.odt Police Station, Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) and the further proceedings of R.C.C. No.52/2024 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola. 3. Non-applicant no.2 lodged FIR alleging that on 14.12.2023 at about 11.00 am while he was going on his two- wheeler towards Court, one truck was unloading bricks near Kaynat Cottage therefore non-applicant no.2 asked driver to park truck on the side. That time applicant, owner of Sufiyana Kirana store, quarrelled with non-applicant no.2 (informant). When informant told him to do his work, applicant abused him by saying “pqrekjhds] cgsupksn” and also gave life threats. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed and case is numbered as above. 4. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant, learned APP for non-applicant no.1/State and learned Advocate for non-applicant no.2. 5. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that in respect of the same incident applicant had lodged FIR against non- applicant no.2 by making similar allegations, only abuses uttered by non-applicant no.2 were different. Non-applicant no.2 approached 3 apl487.24.odt this Court for quashing of the said FIR by filing Criminal Application (APL) No.63/2024 and this Court after hearing the parties, allowed the application and quashed the FIR by order dated 17.10.2024. He submits that the observations made by this Court while quashing the proceedings initiated by applicant against non-applicant no.2 are applicable to the facts of the present case also and on the same grounds the FIR in question is liable to be quashed and set aside, since it does not make out the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 294(b) of the IPC. In support of his submissions, he relied on N.S. Madhanagopal and another Vs. K. Lalitha 1. 6. Learned APP fairly concedes that para 9 of the judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate for the applicant supports his case. 7. Learned Advocate for non-applicant no.2 vehemently opposed the application contending that there are two witnesses to the incident narrated in the FIR in question and since charge-sheet is filed in the present case, the FIR is not liable to be quashed. He submits that the allegations made in the FIR clearly disclose the offence punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506 of the IPC. 1 (2022) 17 SCC 818 4 apl487.24.odt 8. It is a matter of record that the applicant lodged FIR about the same incident, making similar allegations against non- applicant no.2, stating that non-applicant no.2 quarrelled with him and abused him by saying words “gkjke[kksj” “eknjpksn”. This Court quashed the FIR lodged by applicant relying on the decision of Madhangopal (supra) and observing that “essence of Section 294(b) of the IPC is that the obscene words must have tendency to corrupt by arousing a lustful desire which is totally absent in the words allegedly uttered by the applicant. Thus, this case squarely falls in the criteria Nos.1 and 3 of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [AIR (1992) SC 604]”. The applicant’s case is squarely covered by the above observations. 9. In Madhangopal (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 9, which reads thus: “9. 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. 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 appellants accused annoyed others, it can not be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC is made out.” [emphasis supplied] 5 apl487.24.odt 10. Perusal of the FIR and charge-sheet in the present matter show that there is no material on record to establish that utterance of words by applicant caused annoyance to the others. Though two witnesses have supported the allegations made in the FIR and have quoted the obscene words cited by applicant, they have not stated that utterance of the said words annoyed them or others. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC is made out. Continuation of prosecution against applicant is, therefore, an abuse of process of law. 11. In the result, the application is allowed. 12. Crime No.0481/2023 registered with Old City Police Station, Akola and the proceedings R.C.C. No.52/2024 pending in the Court of learned 2nd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in above terms. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J) (N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Wagh