Mere Performance Of Obscene Act Not Sufficient, 'Annoyance Of Others' Needed To Constitute Offence U/S 294 IPC: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that to constitute an offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, the mere performance of an obscene or indecent act is not sufficient; further proof must establish that it was to the annoyance of others, as 'annoyance to others' is essential to constitute an offence under this section. The Court added that when the section says "annoyance to others" is a prerequisite to invoking the provision, the issue of "obscenity or indecency per se" will not arise until or unless there is evidence on record to show whether a person at a given time witnessing a particular obscene act was annoyed or not. A bench of Justice Shamim Ahmed observed thus while quashing the summoning order, chargesheet sheet as well as entire criminal proceedings initiated against a 20-year-old BA Student who had been booked under Section 294 IPC for allegedly doing obscene acts against the passing women of the area. The allegations in brief As per the prosecution's case, the applicant-accused, who was present at the railway crossing at the time of the incident and the police party, in a very cautious manner, nabbed him red-handed while he was creating a nuisance in a public place and was passing obscene comments on the girls and ladies. Arguments in brief Seeking relief in the case, the Accused moved the High Court, wherein his counsel argued that despite the incident occurring on a busy bridge with public access, there were no independent witnesses to the arrest-cum-recovery. It was further contended that the police conducted the proceedings in violation of sections 100 and 165 of the CrPC, rendering them illegal and unreliable. It was also highlighted that the FIR and arrest-cum-recovery memo shows the police acted hastily, registering the FIR within one and a half hours without preparing a site plan or examining any independent witnesses or females allegedly subjected to obscene comments by the applicant. Importantly, it was also stressed that even if all the allegations levelled against the applicant are prima facie viewed, the offence alleged is not made out since the mere use of abusive, humiliating, or defamatory words cannot attract an offence under section 294 of IPC unless the same is uttered to the annoyance of others, which is completely lacking in the instant case. High Court's observations On perusing the records, the Court said that the police had conducted the investigation of the case in a “tainted, botched-up and hasty manner” to “show up the good work.” The Court also noted that the arrest-cum-recovery proceedings were conducted by the police in gross violation of provisions of section 100 and 165 CrPC and the FIR was registered without preparation of any site plan or making any effort to examine any of the independent eye-witnesses or examining any of passing by females against whom allegedly the applicant was passing of obscene comments. The Court added that the police proceeded to make out a false, fabricated, and concocted case as there was no independent witness to the aforesaid arrest-cum-recovery memo. Further, noting the ingredients of the offence under section 294 IPC, the Court observed that none of the females had been examined to establish that the alleged act of passing obscene comments upon the passing females had caused them annoyance. Therefore, the Court added that in the absence of such evidence, the impugned charge sheet and summoning order are devoid of any merit and gross abuse of the process of law. “The instant case is a gross misuse of penal laws in particular and criminal law in general since no criminal offence is made out from the perusal of the aforesaid facts. The impugned summoning order has been passed arbitrarily without consideration to the material on record and without due application of the judicial mind,” the court further said. Lastly, noting that the accused is a 'bright' undergraduate student pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Humanities, whose entire life and career are at risk due to a false implication in the present case, the Court quashed the case against him. Case title - Monu Kumar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 362 Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 362 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Mere Performance Of Obscene Act Not Sufficient, 'Annoyance Of Others' Needed To Constitute Offence U/S 294 IPC: Allahabad HC

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags