The Supreme Court division bench consisting of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and JB Pardiwala ruled that mere abusive, humiliating, and defamatory words by themselves could not attract an offence under Section 294 of the IPC. The utterance of obscene words is insufficient to prove the offence under Section 294 of the IPC; additional evidence must be presented to establish that it was done to the annoyance of others.

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

The Court stated that the test of obscenity under Section 294(b) of the I.P.C. is "whether the matter charged with obscenity tends to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are susceptible to such immoral influences. The bench, referring to the observation of P.T. Chacko v. Naina", further held that "to prove the offence under Section 294 of IPC mere utterance of obscene 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 cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC is made out."

The court set aside the charges of wrongful restrain under Section 341 IPC, stating that "the complaint also fails to disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of wrongful restraint. 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 court further allowed the appeal and observed that "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:

Criminal Appeal No. 1759/2022

N. S. MADHANAGOPAL & ANR. ... APPELLANT(S)
 VS.
K . LALITHA ... RESPONDENT(S)

Read the complete Judgment on the following Link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/16688/16688_2022_4_44_38886_Order_10-Oct-2022.pdf