Mere Abusive, Humiliating Or Defamative Words By Itself Cannot Attract Offence Under Section 294 IPC : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code.

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,  the bench of Justices S.Abdul Nazeer and JB Pardiwala observed.

In this case, a complaint was lodged by a woman before a Judicial Magistrate against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 341 resply of the Indian Penal Code. The accused filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the Madras High Court which got dismissed. 

In appeal, the Apex Court bench noticed that all that has been averred in the complaint is that the accused hurled unparliamentary words towards the complainant. The court said 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.

Section 294 IPC reads thus: 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.

Referring to the observations made in P.T. Chacko v. Nainan (1967 KLT 799), the court said:

It has to be noted that in the instance case, the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b). None of the records disclose the alleged words used by the accused. It may not be the requirement of law to reproduce in all cases the entire obscene words if it is lengthy, but in the instant case, there is hardly anything on record. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. 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.

The court also observed that Section 341 IPC (wrongful restraint) is also not attracted in this case. It observed:

In order to attract application of Section 341 which provides for punishment for wrongful restraint, it has to be proved that there was obstruction by the accused; (ii) such obstruction prevented a person from proceeding in a direction to which he had a right to proceed; and (iii) the accused caused such obstruction voluntarily. The obstructor must intend or know or would have reason to believe that the means adopted would cause obstruction to the complainant..The averments made in the complaint according to us are not sufficient to even constitute the offence of wrongful restraint

While allowing the appeal, the court further observed:

Taking cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1) of the Cr.P.C. and issue of process under Section 204 are judicial functions and require a judicious approach. This is a proposition not only based on sound logic but is also based on fundamental principles of justice, as a person against whom no offence is disclosed cannot be put to any harassment by the issue of process. Issuance of process must be preceded by an application of judicial mind to the material before the court to determine if there is ground for proceedings against the accused. When the allegations made in the complaint are found to be too vague and general without giving any material particulars of the offence alleged against the accused then the order of the Magistrate issuing process on the basis of the complaint would not be justified as there must be material prima facie, for issuance of process. We have our own doubts whether even the verification of the original complainant on oath was recorded before taking cognizance and issuing process.

Case details

M S Madhanagopal vs K Lalitha | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 844 | CrA 1759 OF 2022 | 10 October 2022 | Justices S.Abdul Nazeer and J B Pardiwala

Headnotes

Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Section 294 - Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. To prove the offence under Section 294 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 - The test of obscenity under Section 294(b) is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Section 341 - Wrongful restraint - It has to be proved that there was obstruction by the accused; (ii) such obstruction prevented a person from proceeding in a direction to which he had a right to proceed; and (iii) the accused caused such obstruction voluntarily. The obstructor must intend or know or would have reason to believe that the means adopted would cause obstruction to the complainant.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 190(1), 204 - Taking cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1) of the Cr.P.C. and issue of process under Section 204 are judicial functions and require a judicious approach. This is a proposition not only based on sound logic but is also based on fundamental principles of justice, as a person against whom no offence is disclosed cannot be put to any harassment by the issue of process. Issuance of process must be preceded by an application of judicial mind to the material before the court to determine if there is ground for proceedings against the accused. When the allegations made in the complaint are found to be too vague and general without giving any material particulars of the offence alleged against the accused then the order of the Magistrate issuing process on the basis of the complaint would not be justified as there must be material prima facie, for issuance of process. We have our own doubts whether even the verification of the original complainant on oath was recorded before taking cognizance and issuing process.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment