(1) 39.apl.1487.2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1487 OF 2022 Ku. Vijaya d/o Shriram Gulhane Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station Avadhootwadi, Yavatmal, District Yavatmal and another -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A. C. Suryawanshi, Advocate h/f Mr. G. R. Sadar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. A. G. Mate, APP for non-applicant No.1/State. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 01/12/2025 1. Present application is preferred by the applicant for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with Crime No.1357/2019 registered with Police Station Avadhootwadi, Yavatmal, District Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing SCC No.2450/2020 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6, Yavatmal. 2. The applicant is serving as a Nurse and crime is registered against her on the basis of a report lodged by Pratibha w/o Gangadhar Gorde on an allegation that on 14.11.2019, she was serving as a Headmistress and the present applicant was a Nurse in a specially challenged 2025:BHC-NAG:13840-DB (2) 39.apl.1487.2022 student’s school. It is alleged that on 14.11.2019 at 11.30 a.m., the applicant has obtained the photograph of one teacher, on that count, there was an altercation between the informant and the present applicant and present applicant has uttered the obscene words by abusing her “rqEgh lxGs gjke[kksj fup gydVdq=s ukykbZd eknjjpksn vkgkr rqEgh nks?ks [kqi ektys vkgs- vls Eg.kqu vf’yy Hkk”ksr f’kohxkG d:u ekj.;kph /kedh fnyh-” and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 294 as well as 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, who submitted that even accepting the allegation as it is, nothing is on record to show that the words used by the applicant are sufficient to give an annoyance to the informant or any other person. Mere abuses are not the obscene act, and therefore, no offence is made out against the present applicant either under Section 294 or under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned APP strongly opposed for the same and submitted that considering the word used by the present applicant while abusing the informant, the offence is made out and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. 5. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the FIR and the investigation papers, the abuses are to the extent that “rqEgh lxGs gjke[kksj fup gydVdq=s ukykbZd eknjjpksn vkgkr rqEgh nks?ks [kqi ektys vkgs- vls Eg.kqu vf’yy Hkk”ksr f’kohxkG d:u ekj.;kph /kedh (3) 39.apl.1487.2022 fnyh-” Section 294(b) of the IPC talks about the obscene acts and songs. Section 294 of the IPC read 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." It is to be noted that the test of obscenity under Section 294(b) of the I.P.C. is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. The following passage from the judgment authored in P.T. Chacko v. Nainan (1967 KLT 799) explains as follows: “The only point argued was that the 1st accused has not committed an offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC., by uttering the words above-mentioned. The courts below have held that the words uttered were obscene and the utterance caused annoyance to the public. I am not inclined to take this view. In the Queen v. Hicklin, [L.R.] 3 Q.B. 360 at 371 Cockburn C.J. Laid down the test of ‘obscenity’ in these words: “……. the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences” This test has been uniformly followed in India. The Apex Court has accepted the correctness of the test in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881. In Samuel Roth v. U.S.A., 354 US 476 (1957), Chief Justice (4) 39.apl.1487.2022 Warren said that the test of ‘obscenity’ is the “substantial tendency to corrupt by arousing lustful desires”. Mr. Justice Harlan observed that in order to be ‘obscene’ the word must “tend to sexually impure thoughts”. I do not think that the words uttered in this case have such a tendency. It may be that the words are defamatory of the complainant, but I do not think that the words are ‘obscene’ and the utterance would constitute an offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC”. 6. In the instance case also, the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294. None of the statements record the alleged words used by the accused and therefore, the essential ingredients are not fulfilled. As far as Section 506 of IPC is concerned, if the words uttered by the present applicant are considered in the light of the definition of criminal intimidation given under Section 503 of IPC, which is reproduced as under: “503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another 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. Explanation.— A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.” (5) 39.apl.1487.2022 7. The entire allegations levelled against the present applicant if considered in the light of the definition of criminal intimidation, no offence is made out against the present applicant. In view of that, the offence under Section 506 of IPC is also not made out, and therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following order: ORDER (i) The application is allowed. (ii) The FIR in connection with Crime No.1357/2019 registered with Police Station Avadhootwadi, Yavatmal, District Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing SCC No.2450/2020 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6, Yavatmal, to the extent of the present applicant is quashed and set aside. The application is disposed of. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate