'Public Place' U/S 294(b) IPC Includes Areas Where Obscenities Can Cause Annoyance To Those In Vicinity, Not Limited To Public Spaces Alone: Kerala HC

Justice A. Badharudeen added that 'in or near public place' mentioned in Section 294 (b) of the IPC is wide enough to include areas in the vicinity of public places and does not limit its orbit to absolute public place alone.

“…..it is held that as regards to obscene act, the term public place used in Section 294(a) of the Indian Penal Code, is much wider in its sweep as it encompasses even those areas which are in the vicinity of public place, meaning thereby that if the obscene words uttered in a `public place' is heard by someone who is in the vicinity of the public place, so as to cause annoyance to them. In such cases, offence under section 294(b) of Indian Penal Code would attract. The term `in or near public place' referred in Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code does not limit its orbit in absolute public place alone.”

As per prosecution allegations, the accused charged under Section 294 (b) of the IPC is a textile shop employer and was accused of abusing the de facto complainant (employee) at the office cabin out of animosity since she joined the labour union and persuaded other staff to join.

The petitioner argued that Section 294 (b) would not be attracted. He relied upon the Allahabad High Court decision in Zafar Ahmad Khan v State (1962) to argue that the word obscene has to be judged based on facts of each case in the context of the surroundings to determine whether the questioned act is obscene or not. Relying upon Dr K Ramachandran v Sub Inspector of Police (2022), it was argued that a doctor's consulting room was not deemed as a public place or near public place.

On the other hand, the respondent contended that the cabin of the textiles is a place near a public place which would come within the ambit of 'near public place' under Section 294 (b) of IPC. It was stated that the defacto complainant was abused with words causing sexually impure thoughts and caused annoyance to others when she was inside the cabin of the textiles.

Relying upon precedents, the Court stated that the essential ingredients to attract Section 294 (b) are thus, “(i) the offender has done any obscene act in any public place or has sung, recited or uttered any obscene songs or words in or near any public place; and (ii) has so caused annoyance to others.”

The Court stated that the term 'in or near any public place' is not limited to public places alone but also in any public place in or near any public place.

In the facts of the case, the Court found that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the de facto complainant for dereliction of duty. It thus found that before the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC was registered against the petitioner (employer), the de facto complainant (employee) was facing disciplinary proceedings. The Court stated that this case was registered as a retaliatory measure by the de facto complainant to avoid disciplinary action initiated against her.

In this case, the Court noted that the alleged abusive words were made inside the cabin by the petitioner to the de facto complainant. It added, “It is true that if the abusive words were heard by the others so as to cause annoyance, the cabin of the textile is to be treated as a place having access to the public, though with permission.”

As such, the Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Thomas J.Anakkallunkal, Maria Paul

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates Anoop.V.Nair, Devi P.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 523

Case Title: K P Aliyar v State of Kerala

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 2585 OF 2021

Click here to read/download Order