Sayyad Niyaz Ali Karamat Ali And 2 Others vs State Of Mah Thr. Pso Ps Nagpuri Gate ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1727 Bom

Bombay High Court

Sayyad Niyaz Ali Karamat Ali And 2 Others vs State Of Mah Thr. Pso Ps Nagpuri Gate ... on 16 February, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:3396-DB




              Judgment

                                                                16 apl274.23

                                            1

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

                         CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.274/2023

              1. Sayyad Niyaz Ali Karamat Ali,
              aged about 79 years,
              occupation: Nil,
              r/o Sabanpura, Nagpuri Gate,
              district: Amravati.

              2. Anzar Parvez Khan,
              Gulam Murtuja Khan,
              aged about 65 years,
              occupation: Secretary,
              r/o Paradise Colony,
              Nagpuri Gate, Taluka and
              district: Amravati.

              3. Aasma Shirin Sayyad Niyaz Ali,
              aged about 40 years,
              occupation: service,
              r/o A1 Hilal Colony,
              Nagpuri Gate, Amravati Taluka and
              district: Amravati.             ..... Applicants.

                                    :: V E R S U S ::

              1. State of Maharashtra, through Police
              Station Officer, Police Station
              Nagpuri Gate, Amravati, taluka and
              district: Amravati.

              2. Mohd.Ayyub Mohd.Yusuf, aged
              about 71 years, occupation: LIC


                                                                    .....2/-
 Judgment

                                                    16 apl274.23

                              2

Agent, r/o Moulapura, Nagpuri Gate,
Amravati, taluka and district: Amravati. ..... Non-applicants.
================================
Shri C.A.Babrekar, Counsel for Applicants.
Shri A.M.Kadukar, APP for the NA No.1/State.
Shri S.K.Jagirdar, Counsel for NA No.2.
================================
CORAM       : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE        : 16/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective

parties. Admit. Heard finally by consent.

2. By this application, applicants are seeking quashing of

FIR in connection with Crime No.494/2022 registered for

offences under Sections 294, 341, and 506 read with 34 of

the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same

bearing chargesheet No.213/2025 and SCC No.7705/2025

pending before learned JMFC, Amravati.

3. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged

by non-applicant No.2 (the complainant) on allegations that

on 10.10.2022, when he had been to attend an interview at

.....3/-

Judgment

16 apl274.23

Friends School, Habib Nagar, Amravati, applicants restrained

him from entering into the premises and abused him in a

filthy and obscene language.

On the basis of the said report, the police have

registered the offence against present applicants.

4. During investigation, the investigating officer recorded

relevant statements of witnesses and after completion of

investigation, submitted chargesheet against applicants.

5. Learned counsel for applicants invited my attention

towards recital of the FIR and submitted that at the most,

words used by applicants, even accepted as it is, i.e. filthy

language, but from that language, nowhere any lascivious

elements are appearing and, therefore, the offence under

Section 294 of the IPC is not made out.

He submitted that the offence under Section 341 of the

IPC is also not made out as the act does cover under the

definition of wrongful confinement and, therefore, no prima

.....4/-

Judgment

16 apl274.23

facie case is made out against the applicant and, therefore,

the application deserves to be allowed.

6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for

applicants placed reliance on following decisions:

1. Om Prakash Ambadkar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in MANU/SC/0134/2025, and

2. Criminal Application APL No.364/2025 (Pravin s/o Sudhakar Jade and ors vs. State of Mah., thr.PSO, Paratwada, Taluka Achalpur, district Amravati and anr) decided by this court on 3.10.2025.

7. Per contra, learned APP for the State and learned

counsel for the complainant have strongly opposed the said

contentions and submitted that regarding the said incident,

cross complaint is also filed vide Crime No.492/2022.

They invited my attention towards words used by

applicants and submitted that, the same itself are sufficient to

attract the offence under Section 294 of the IPC as lascivious

.....5/-

Judgment

16 apl274.23

elements are present there. Therefore, a prima facie case is

made out against applicants. In view of that, the application

deserves to be rejected.

8. On hearing both sides and perusing the entire

investigation papers, it reveals that present applicants are

charged with offence that the complainant is the President of

Friends School, Habib Nagar, Amravati and he had been to

the school to attend an interview, but he was restrained by

applicants.

9. It is apparent that there is some dispute pending

before the Charity Commissioner, Amravati regarding change

report.

10. Coming to the recital of the FIR, it is alleged that

applicants have restrained the complainant from entering into

the school premises by using words "gdhdr v"kk izdkjs vkgs

dh] ;krhy ueqn ?k-rk- osGh o fBdk.kh ;krhy fQ;kZnh gs QszUM~l Ldqy gchcuxj

lkslk;Vhps v/;{k vlqu ueqn ?k-Rkk- osGh o fBdk.kh fQ;kZnh o lkscr Ldqy ps

.....6/-

Judgment

16 apl274.23

lpho gs f"k{kd in HkrhZ dfjrk baVjOg;q ?ks.ks lkBh Ldqye/;s xsys vlrk ;krhy

ueqn frUgh vkjksihrkauk Ldqyps vkWQhl e/;s ;s.ksl eukbZ d:u "kkGsps xzkmaM oj

fQ;kZnhl rqe dSls baVjOg;q ysrks gks /keZnk; vk;qDr dh vkWMZj rqEgkjs XXX es Hkjyks

vls Eg.kqu rqEgkjs ekW cg.k dks XXX v"kh vf"yy Hkk'ksr f"kohxkG d:u ekj.;kph

/kedh fnyh-"

11. As per allegations, the applicant has used "obscene

words".

Whether it would attract the offence under Section

294 of the IPC, a reference of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of N.S. Madhanagopal and anr vs. K.Lalitha,

reported in (2022), 17 SCC 818 would be relevant here

wherein it is laid down the test of "obscenity" under Section

294 of the IPC and observed that, "whether the tendency of

the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt

those whose minds are open to such immoral influences."

It has been further observed that, "this test has been

uniformly followed in India. The Supreme Court has

.....7/-

Judgment

16 apl274.23

accepted the correctness of the test in Ranjit D. Udeshi vs.

State of Maharashtra, reported in MANU/SC/0080/1964 that

the test of "obscenity" is the 'substantial tendency to corrupt

by arousing lustful desires'." "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."

12. By applying the said test to the allegations levelled

against applicants in the present case, at least, if words used

can be said to be a filthy language or defamatory words by

themselves, the same are not sufficient to attract offence

under Section 294 of the IPC.

13. As far as offence under Section 506 of the IPC is

concerned, it is alleged that applicants have threatened the

.....8/-

Judgment

16 apl274.23

complainant and thereby committed an offence of criminal

intimidation.

14. The definition of "criminal intimidation" is given under

Section 503 of the IPC, which states that whoever threatens

another with any injury to 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.

15. The Hon'ble Apex has also considered Section 506 of

the IPC and it is observed that intentional insult with intent to

provoke such person insulted to breach of the peace and

thereby committed "criminal intimidation" is to be considered

in the light of ingredients which are required.

.....9/-

Judgment

16 apl274.23

16. Thus, to attract offence under Section 506(2) of the

IPC, the threat must be with an 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.

17. By considering the allegations against applicants,

ingredients of Section 506 of the IPC are also not fulfilled.

18. Applicants are also charged for offence under Section

341 of the IPC, which deals with punishment for wrongful

confinement.

19. Section 340 of the IPC deals with wrongly confinement

which states that whoever wrongfully restrains any person in

such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding

beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to

confine" that person.

.....10/-

Judgment

16 apl274.23

20. Admittedly, there appears to be dispute between two

groups and the dispute regarding the said groups was already

referred to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Amravati. The

change report is already rejected.

21. Thus, it appears that the alleged incident has occurred

due to dispute between two groups as of the trustees.

22. By applying the definition definition to the acts

committed by applicants, admittedly, the offence under

Section 341 is also not made out against applicants.

23. 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 considered while

considering applications for quashing of the FIRs, which read

as under:

.....11/-

Judgment

16 apl274.23

"(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 investi- gation 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;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations 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

.....12/-

Judgment

16 apl274.23

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 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."

.....13/-

Judgment

16 apl274.23

24. In view of that, no prima facie case is made out against

applicants and, therefore, the application deserves to be

allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:

ORDER

(1) The criminal application is allowed.

(2) FIR in connection with Crime No.494/2022 registered for

offences under Sections 294, 341, and 506 read with 34 of

the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same

bearing chargesheet No.213/2025 and SCC No.7705/2025

pending before learned JMFC, Amravati are hereby quashed

and set aside to the extent of present applicants.

Application stands disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

!! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 26/02/2026 18:49:19