Bombay High Court
Dr. Vidya W/O Anil Rathod vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 22 February, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
APL97.15 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.97 OF 2015
Dr. Vidya W/o. Anil Rathod,
Aged about 30 years,
Occupation : Medical Practitioner,
R/o. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal. . . . . APPLICANT
. . . .VERSUS. . . .
1. The State of Maharashtra Through
P. S.O. Pusad (City),
Police Station, Tq. Pusad,
Distt. Yavatmal.
2. Bharatlal S/o. Shivprasad Jaiswal,
Aged about 61 years,
Occupation : Retired,
R/o. Tagadpallewar Layout,
Near Rani Laxmibai School,
Motinagar, Pusad,
Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal. . . . . NON-APPLICANTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Firdos Mirza, Advocate for applicant.
Shri T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for non-applicant no. 1/State.
Shri V. N. Morande, Advocate for non-applicant no. 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ AND
AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATE : 22.02.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicant challenging registration of First
Information Report 3224 of 2014 dated 03.12.2014 registered with
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 10:42:32 :::
APL97.15 2
the non-applicant no.1 - Police Station for offences under Sections
294, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The First Information Report came to be registered
against the applicant with the accusation that the applicant
alongwith 5 - 6 persons abused and threatened the non-applicant
no.2 by making obscene remarks.
3. The applicant has, therefore, challenged registration of
First Information Report. This Court on 17.2.2015 issued notice and
by way of ad-interim relief, it was directed that no coercive steps be
taken against the applicants. This Court on 28.9.2015 issued Rule
and continued interim relief already granted.
4. The non-applicant no.2, in pursuance of notice, has
filed reply and it is stated that the applicant had visited plot owned
by the non-applicant no. 2 and threatened the non-applicant no. 2.
5. The non-applicant no.2 has filed his reply and written
submissions and it is stated that the original owner Deepak
Tagadpallewar trifurcated his plot into three portions; one portion
was sold to Dwarkaprasad Sharma on 11.06.2009, admeasuring
218.74 sq.mtrs., another portion was sold to one Babulal Choudhari
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 10:42:32 :::
APL97.15 3
admeasuring 217.24 sq.mtrs and third portion admeasuring 220.62
sq.mtrs. was sold to one Suresh Paradh. The portions, which were
sold to Shri Sharma and Shri Chaudhari, were purchased by the
applicants and third portion of the plot was purchased by the non-
applicant no.2 from Suresh Paradh. It is submitted that the
applicants had agreed to sale half of the plot admeasuring 109.37
sq.mtrs. to the non-applicant no.2 but, they had shown less area in
the description of the property and, therefore, Civil Suit bearing
No.114 of 2010 came to be filed for correction of agreement, which
was compromised by granting area of 89 sq.mtrs. to the non-
applicant no.2. It is submitted that there is no merit in the
application of the applicant.
6. The learned Advocate for the non-applicant no.2 has
filed Pursis dated 22.2.2021 by annexing Death Certificate dated
22.3.2019 stating that the non-applicant no.2 has expired on
07.03.2019.
7. We have carefully considered the contents of the First
Information Report. For the purpose of adjudicatingas to whether
ingredients of offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code
are fulfilled, it is relevant to consider Section 294 of the Indian
Penal Code, which reads as under:
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 10:42:32 :::
APL97.15 4
"294. Obscene acts and songs.--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."
8. On the perusal of the above provision, which is
invoked against the applicant, it is seen that the obscene act for
constituting offence punishable under Section 294 of the Indian
Penal Code needs to be done in any public place and same is also
required to cause annoyance to others. If any person resides or
utters or words, in or near any public place, thereby causing
annoyance to others then he can be said to be committed an
offence an offence punishable under Section 294 of the Indian
Penal Code. Keeping in mind these ingredients of offence of Section
294 of the Indian Penal Code, let us examine whether averments
made by the non-applicant no. 2 in the First Information Report
prima facie fulfills the requirement of offence punishable under
Section 294 of Indian Penal Code.
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 10:42:32 :::
APL97.15 5
9. The main ingredient of Section 294 of the Indian Penal
Code is commission of an obscene act at public place. Black's Law
Dictionary, 8th Edition defines `public place' as under:
"Public Place:- Any location that the local, state or national
government maintains for the use of the public, such as a
highway, park, or public building".
10. Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code is meant for
punishing persons indulging in obscene acts at any public place
causing annoyance to others; places where such obscene act is
committed needs to have taken place causing annoyance to others;
places where such act is committed needs to have taken place is
made for use of public at large and public must have free access to
such place . The place where public has no lawful right is to enter
into, cannot be said to be public place for invoking the penal
provisions of section 294 of the Indian Penal Code. It must be
shown that public at large has right to have free ingress to such
place. Considering the present matter from the meaning of public
place, we are satisfied that the plot owned by the non-applicant
no.2 cannot be said to be public place. Therefore, essential
ingredients of Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code is not fulfilled
::: Uploaded on - 25/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2021 10:42:32 :::
APL97.15 6
even if the accusations in the first information report are accepted
as correct.
11. Insofar as the ingredients of Section 506 of the Indian
Penal Code is concerned, in order to bring home the offence
punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, it is
necessary that threat given is real and the person giving the threat
means, it. A threat with mens rea to cause injury is an essential
ingredient to constitute offence under Section 506 of the Indian
Penal Code. The allegations against the applicnt in the First
Information Report are the vague, appear to be inherently
improbable.
12. We are, therefore, satisfied that the continuation of the
present proceedings against the applicants would amount to abuse
of process of the Court. We, therefore pass following order:
ORDER
First Information Report No.3224 of 2014 dated 3.12.2014
registered with the non-applicant no.1 - Police Station for offence
punishable under Sections 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of
Indian penal Code is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
ambulkar
