College Principal's Chamber A Public Place, Uttering Abusive Words To Colleagues Inside It An Obscene Act: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench recently restored an order passed by a Magistrate Court in Murtizapur, Maharashtra, issuing process against a college principal for offences under Sections 294 (obscenity), 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

Justice Anil Pansare held that the words allegedly uttered by the Principal asking his colleagues “Whether your wives had come to me for sleeping to tell you that I am of bad character” inside his chamber in front of three other professors would amount to an obscene act.

The college Principal's chamber was a 'public place' as contemplated under Section 294 of the IPC, the court said, adding, “The Sessions Court, however, took an erroneous view that the Principal's Chamber is not a public place.”

“As regards public place, the act has been committed in the Respondent No.2's Chamber, which is situated in the College premises. The College premises is admittedly a public place, as the students, teachers, staff and other such persons connected with the College have access to the building, in which the Chamber of the Principal is located. In that sense, the Chamber of the Principal could be said to be a public place,” it said.

The court also took strong exception against the investigating officer's failure to approach the Magistrate to investigate the non-cognisable complaint under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC.

Justice Pansare allowed the present plea filed by a librarian at Gadge Maharaj Mahavidyalaya in Murtizapur, against the Akola Sessions Court's order which had found the principal not guilty and set aside the Magistrate's order.

The case relates to an incident on 11 November 2020 when the college principal Santosh Madhavrao Thakre had allegedly abused the petitioner using obscene language in his chamber, where three other staff members were also present.

On a complaint filed by Satpute, the investigating officer had registered a non-cognizable offence. Satpute later approached the Magistrate under Section 200 of the CrPC, based on which the Magistrate took cognizance and issued process under Sections 294, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

The Sessions Court set aside the Magistrate's order on grounds that the Principal's chamber was not a public place and no video evidence was placed on record by the petitioner.

Allowing the petition, Justice Pansare observed that the college premises where the Principal's chamber is located is a public place accessible to all. He also noted that the petitioner had submitted a pen drive containing video evidence of the incident.

“In the present case, abusive words uttered by the Respondent No.2 are, “Whether your wives had come to me for sleeping to tell you that I am of bad character,” This act can be said to be an obscene act. The act committed can be said to be an obscene act committed to the annoyance of the others,” the court noted in its order.

On the circumstances of the case, the High Court also directed the state police chief to issue guidelines for investigating officers to seek the Magistrate's permission to investigate non-cognizable offences in appropriate cases under Section 155(2) of the CrPC. It observed that the practice of leaving it to the informant to pursue non-cognizable offences needs to change.

Appearances – Adv S. M. Vaishnav for Petitioner. APP AR Chutke for Respondent State

Case Title - Nitin Shivdas Satpute vs The State of Maharashtra

Click Here To Read/Download Order