Offence U/S 294 IPC Not Attracted In Absence Of Allegations Of Annoyance, Usage Of Obscene Words: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal added that when it is not clear in the prosecution’s case as to what obscene words were stated by the accused, then merely saying that the accused had abused, won’t be sufficient to attract rigour of Section 294 of IPC.

Importantly, the Court also held that mere threats given to by the accused, not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant, but with a view to deterring him from interfering in the discharge of his (accused) duties would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation.

The Court observed thus while quashing an FIR lodged against an employee of the Power Grid Corporation Limited under Sections 294, 506 of IPC.

Prosecution’s case

The complainants (Kailash Tamrakar and Roop Kumar Harbol) Journalists by profession, submitted a joint application in writing before the Police alleging that they had gone to village Bihta for the coverage of a matter, when the accused (Prafulla Jaiswal), on the basis of instigation by an employee named Subhash Chandra came and abused them. They also threatened to damage the camera and were attempting to manhandle them.

Following this, an FIR was lodged and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed for the commission of an offence under Sections 294 and 506 of IPC before JMFC Unchehara.

Challenging the FIR, the accused moved the Court alleging that even if the allegations are taken in their entirety, then also the ingredients for the offences are not made out.

Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant along with other officers of the corporation were working for the completion of the project on a war footing basis and the complainants were causing obstructions in the ongoing work of public importance and thus, they filed a false case.

Court's observations

Perusing the complaint and statement of witnesses, the Court noted the complainants had, in their statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, nowhere stated that any word stated by Praful Kumar caused any annoyance to both of them and others.

Observing that causing annoyance to others is a sine qua non for the commission of an offence under Section 294 of IPC, the Court said that mere platitudinous utterances signifying the enraged state of a person’s mind would not be sufficient to attract Section 294 of IPC.

“It has to be noted that in the case on hand, the absence of allegations of annoyance and alleged stated words to be obscene words cannot attract the charge under Section 294 of IPC. As it is not clear that as to what obscene words were stated by the applicant mere saying that ‘गाली गलोच की’ is not sufficient to attract rigor of Section 294 of IPC”

Regarding the allegations under Section 506 IPC, the Court noted that the accused had allegedly stated that if they (complainants) came back again, they would be run over by the tractor. The Court further said that even if, for the sake of argument the above allegations are taken as true even then the aforesaid allegations on their face value do not satisfy the necessary ingredients of section 506 of IPC.

"A plain reading of the allegations does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 506 Part II of IPC because an offence of criminal intimidation can be made out only if it is established that the accused had an intention to cause an alarm to the complainant. Mere threats given to by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant, but with a view to deterring them from interfering in the discharge of his duties would not constitute an offence of criminal intimidation"

Against this backdrop, the Court found that the ingredients necessary for constituting offences under Section 294 and 506-II of IPC are clearly missing and hence, the Court quashed the FIR.

Case title - Prafulla Kumar Jaiswal vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Case Citation:

Click Here To Read/Download Order