[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Varsha Govind Kankal vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O. ... on 5 December, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:13579-DB




              Judgment

                                                              507 apl534.18

                                          1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.534 OF 2018

              1. Varsha Govind Kankal,
              aged about 36 years, occupation: lawyer,
              r/o ward No.10, Sindhkhedraja,
              district Buldana.                  ..... Applicant.
                                  :: V E R S U S ::
              1. State of Maharashtra,
              through PSO Deulgaonraja, district
              Buldana.

              2. Archana w/o Pradip Ghewande,
              aged about 43, years, occupation: lawyer,
              r/o Aadarsha Colony, Deulgaonraja,
              taluka Deulgaonraja, district Buldana. ..... Non-applicants.

              Shri M.V.Rai, Counsel for Applicant.
              Shri N.H.Joshi, Addl.P.P. for the State
              Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, Counsel for NA No.2.

              CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE &
                      NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, JJ.

              CLOSED ON : 26/11/2025
              PRONOUNCED ON : 05/12/2025

              JUDGMENT ( Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke)

1. The present application is preferred by the

applicant for quashing of the FIR in connection with Crime

.....2/-

Judgment

507 apl534.18

No.181/2017 for offences under Sections 294, 323, 504,

and 506 of the IPC and subsequent proceeding arising out

of the same bearing chargesheet No.272/2017.

2. The applicant is arrayed as accused on the

basis of report lodged by Advocate Archana Ghewande on

allegation that 27.6.2017 the applicant approached her

and had altercations of words in abusive language and

assaulted her by slaps and fists and also threatened her.

On the basis of the said report, the police registered the

crime under Sections 294, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC.

3. It is contended by the applicant that she is

arraigned as accused in the said crime, merely because she

has lodged report against the informant and her husband

alleging that the husband of the informant has subjected

her for forceful sexual assault and threatened her and to

give a counterblast to the said complaint, this false FIR is

lodged against her. She contended that the statements of .....3/-

Judgment

507 apl534.18

the witnesses nowhere disclose any prima facie material

against her. In view of that, the application deserves to be

allowed and the FIR against her deserves to be quashed.

4. Heard learned counsel Shri M.V.Rai for the

applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri

N.H.Joshi for the State, and learned counsel Shri

S.V.Sirpurkar for non-applicant No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant invited our

attention towards various statements of witnesses and

submitted that considering statements of witnesses, no

prima facie case is made out against the applicant. Merely

because she has prosecuted the informant and her

husband in cross complaint as well as in another

complaint, this false FIR is lodged. He also invited our

attention towards recital of the FIR and submitted that

mere abusive and humiliating or defamatory words by

itself cannot attract an offence 294(b) of the IPC.

.....4/-

Judgment

507 apl534.18

6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the State submitted that cross complaints are filed

against each other. In both cases, prima facie material

discloses involvement of the applicant in the alleged

incident and, therefore, the application deserves to be

rejected.

7. After hearing both the sides and perusing

recital of the entire FIR and investigation papers, it shows

that allegations against the applicant are that the applicant

has abused the informant in a filthy and abusive language

and thereby committed an offence under Sections 294,

323, 504, and 506 of the IPC.

8. The law relating to quashing of FIRs was

explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State

of Haryana and ors vs. Bhajan Lal and ors, reported in

1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335 wherein principles

have been laid down which are required to be .....5/-

Judgment

507 apl534.18

considered while considering applications for quashing

of the FIRs, which read as under:

"(a) where the allegations made in the First

Information Report or the complaint, even if

they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie

constitute any offence or make out a case

against the accused;

(b) where the allegations in the First

Information Report and other materials, if

any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a

cognizable offence, justifying an investigation

by police officers under Section 156(1) of the

Code except under an order of a Magistrate

within the purview of Section 155(2) of the

Code;

.....6/-

Judgment

507 apl534.18

made in the FIR or 'complaint and the

evidence collected in support of the same do

not disclose the commission of any offence

and make out a case against the accused;

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not

constitute a cognizable offence but constitute

only a non-cognizable offence, no

investigation is permitted by a police officer

without an order of a Magistrate as

contemplated under Section 155(2) of the

Code;

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint are so absurd and inherently

improbable on the basis of which no prudent

person can ever reach a just conclusion that

.....7/-

Judgment

507 apl534.18

there is sufficient ground for proceeding

against the accused;

(f) where there is an express legal bar

engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code

or the concerned Act (under which a criminal

proceeding is instituted) to the institution and

continuance of the proceedings and/or where

there is a specific provision in the Code or the

concerned Act, providing efficacious redress

for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the

accused and with a view to spite him due to

private and personal grudge".

.....8/-

Judgment

507 apl534.18

9. In the light of the said settled principles, if the

facts of the present case are taken into consideration, the

informant as well as the applicant both are Advocates by

profession. The informant as well as the applicant made

contrary allegations against each other. The applicant has

also lodged FIR regarding the said incident vide Crime

No.180/2017 alleging outraging of modesty and criminal

intimidation against the informant and her husband.

10. Perusal of statements of witnesses shows that

though both FIRs are lodged arising out of the same

incident, the investigating officer has recorded statements

of different witnesses. The statements of the witnesses

even if are perused and accepted as it is, it only discloses

as to the abuses.

11. Now, it is settled law that mere abusive and

humiliating or deformity words by itself cannot attract an

offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC.

.....9/-

Judgment

507 apl534.18

12. Section 294 of the IPC talks about obscene

acts and songs. The said Section is reproduced as under

for reference:

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.

13. It is to be noted that test of obscenity under

Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code is, whether the

tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to

deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to

such immoral influences. The following passage from

.....10/-

Judgment

507 apl534.18

the judgment authored by Justice K.K. Mathew (as his

Lordship then was) reported in P.T. Chacko v. Nainan,

reported in (1967 KLT 799) explains as follows:

"The only point argued was that the 1st accused has not committed an offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC., by uttering the words above-mentioned. The courts below have held that the words uttered were obscene and the utterance caused annoyance to the public. I am not inclined to take this view. In the Queen v. Hicklin,[L.R.]3 Q.B. 360 at 371 Cockburn C.J. Laid down the test of 'obscenity' in these words:

"....... the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" This test has been uniformly followed in India. The Supreme Court has accepted the correctness of the test in Ranjit D.Udeshi vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881. In Samuel Roth v. U.S.A., .....11/-

Judgment

507 apl534.18

354 US 476 (1957), Chief Justice Warren said that the test of 'obscenity' is the "substantial tendency to corrupt by arousing lustful desires". Mr. Justice Harlan observed that in order to be 'obscene' the matter must "tend to sexually impure thoughts". I do not think that the words uttered in this case have such a tendency. It may be that the words are defamatory of the complainant, but I do not think that the words are 'obscene' and the utterance would constitute an offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC".

14. In the instant case, in absence of words which

will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual

thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence

under Section 294(b). None of the records disclose the

alleged words used by the accused. It may not be the

requirement of law to reproduce in all cases the entire

obscene words if it is lengthy, but in the instant case,

there is hardly anything on record. Mere abusive,

.....12/-

Judgment

507 apl534.18

humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract

an offence under 294(b) of the IPC. To prove the offence

under 294(b) 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 applicants

accused annoyed others and, therefore, ingredients of the

offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC are not made

out.

15. As far as offences under Sections 504 and 506

of the IPC are concerned, it deals with intentional insult

with intent to provoke breach of the peace and punishable

for "criminal intimidation". The definition of "criminal

intimidation" is given under Section 503 of the IPC, which

states that whoever threatens another with any injury to

.....13/-

Judgment

507 apl534.18

his person, reputation or property, or to the person or

reputation of any one in whom that person is interested,

with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that

person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do,

or to omit to do any act which that person is legally

entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of

such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

16. Perusal of the entire statement of the informant

as well as statements of witnesses shows that the said

ingredients are absent. It seems that there is only an

altercation of words between the informant and the

applicant, which are not sufficient to attract the offence

under Section 504 or 506 of the IPC. Therefore, no prima

facie case is made out against the applicant to attract the

offences.

17. Since none of the ingredients of the said

offence is present or appears from the statement of the .....14/-

Judgment

507 apl534.18

informant or any of witnesses, no prima facie case is

made out against the applicant and, therefore, the

application deserves to be allowed, as per order below:

ORDER

(1) The Criminal Application is allowed.

(2) The FIR in connection with Crime No.181/2017 for

offences under Sections 294, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC

and subsequent proceeding arising out of the same

bearing chargesheet No.272/2017 are hereby quashed and

set aside to the extent of the applicant.

Application stands disposed of.

(NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, J.) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 05/12/2025 16:31:32