[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Prakash Mahadeorao Gaikwad vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S.O. P.S. Ashti, ... on 21 January, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:974-DB


                      cri apl 300-2020.doc                                                             1/13



                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
                                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.300/2020

                              Prakash Mahadeorao Gaikwad
                              Aged : 39 years, Occp.: Advocate
                              R/o Punarvasan Colony, New
                              Ashti Prabhag, Ashti Distt. Wardha
                                                                                             ... APPLICANT
                                                ...VERSUS...

                      1.      State of Maharashtra
                              Through P.S.O.
                              Police Station Ashti,
                              Tq. Ashti Distt. Wardha

                      2.      Sachin Vishnuprasad Gupta
                              Aged : 37 yrs. Occp: Business
                              R/o Ward No.15, Malipura, Tah.
                              Ashti Distt. Wardha
                                                                                       ...NON-APPLICANTS
                      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Shri U.J. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant
                      Ms D.I. Charlewar, APP for non-applicant No.1/State
                      Shri Prasad Dharaskar, Advocate for non-applicant No.2
                      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              CORAM :           PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.

                              DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 14.01.2026
                              DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT: 21.01.2026


                      JUDGMENT

. Heard.

2. By this application, the applicant is seeking the

quashment of First Information Report bearing Crime No.172/2018

dated 12.08.2018, registered with Police Station, Ashti, District

Wardha, and charge-sheet dated 29.10.2018 for the offences

punishable under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code.

3. The case of the prosecution in short is that non-

applicant No.2 lodged a report to Police Station, Ashti on

12.08.2018 alleging that while he was sitting at the house of his

friend namely Chetan Kadu, the present applicant came there to

fetch a water can. After noticing the fact that non-applicant No.2 is

present there, applicant started abusing the non-applicant No.2 in

filthy language and also assaulted him on the pretext that he has

lodged complaint against him before the Judicial Magistrate. So

also present applicant manhandled him and threw the key of

motorcycle of non-applicant No.2. During this scuffle, the gold

locket from gold chain was also misplaced. On the basis of this

allegation, the non-applicant No.1 registered the offence vide Crime

No.172/2018.

4. It is further pertinent to note that during the pendency

of the present application, the investigation has been completed

and charge-sheet is filed. After filing the charge-sheet, necessary

amendment is carried out in the present matter and accordingly,

the same is also challenged in the present petition.

5. The case of the applicant to challenge the charge-sheet

is that applicant is an Advocate by profession. Non-applicant No.2,

who is the resident of the same area and was party to the various

proceedings, which the applicant has conducted before the Court.

He has pointed out that in Misc. Criminal Case No.910/2017, when

he has cross-examined the witness in the proceedings under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on that day, the non-

applicant No.2 intentionally lodged a complaint against him to the

Judicial Magistrate to put pressure on him that he should not

conduct the Court case against them. The said complaint was filed

before the Judicial Magistrate on 23.07.2018.

6. The perusal of Rojnama of that case depicts the fact

that non-applicant No.2, after filing of the complaint did not

prosecute the same on merits. As such, according to the complaint,

the same was filed only to put pressure on the applicant. It is

further pointed out that one other proceedings was defended by the

applicant bearing SCC No.77/2012. The said proceedings were

decided vide judgment and order dated 11.11.2016. As such, it is

the case of the applicant that non-applicant No.2 has a personal

grudge against him and, therefore, out of the said grudge, the

police complaint is filed by the non-applicant No.2.

7. On merits of the matter, it is the submission of the

applicant that as per the complaint, the alleged incident was taken

place at the house of Chetan Kadu. So also, it is stated by the non-

applicant No.2, when the present applicant was there and quarrel

was started, the said Chetan Kadu has interfered in the matter and

resolved the quarrel. So also, one Mahendra Mukadam was present

at the time of incident. As such, according to him, the incident was

taken place in the house premises of Chetan Kadu. The same was

resolved due to interference of Chetan Kadu and Mahendra

Mukadam. As such, false allegations are made against him in the

matter.

8. In light of these allegations, he has pointed out that

whatever the allegations are made of obscene words are within the

premises of the house of Chetan Kadu. In support of his submission,

he has pointed out that in the statement of Chetan Kadu, which is

recorded on 13.08.2018. So also, relied upon statement of

Mahendra Mukadam, who was also present on the spot and stated

that there was a verbal quarrel between the applicant and non-

applicant No.2 and uttered in obscene/filthy language.

9. The applicant also pointed out from the spot

panchanama wherein it is recorded on the day of incident, the

present applicant was under intoxication and under that

intoxication, he has intentionally created quarrel with the applicant

on the count that non-applicant No.2 has lodged complaint against

him in the matter.

10. As such, it is the submission of the present applicant

that considering the complaint, the statement of the witnesses and

the spot panchanama clearly demonstrate that everywhere there is

a different version and, no specific allegation as such, it creates

doubt whether alleged incident was certainly took place in the

matter or not.

11. Par contra, non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 have strongly

opposed this application. The non-applicant No.2 has filed a reply

in the matter and has stated that the applicant is in the habit to give

threatening to various persons. In support of this submission, he

has relied upon one of the complaints lodged by one Kiran

Jaisingpure, who was working as a Clerk of the Advocate, in the

Court of Ashti, where also the same allegations were leveled

against the present applicant. Secondly, the non-applicant No.2 has

relied upon that medical report and pointed out that from the

medical report, it is clear that there were nail scratches seen over

the neck towards the right side, which were opined to be caused by

nails. Hence, according to the non-applicant No.2, there is ample

evidence available on record to prosecute the present applicant in

the matter, and hence, no interference of this Court is necessary in

the facts and circumstances of the matter.

12. Learned APP also stated that the incriminating material

has been collected during the investigation and from the perusal of

the said material, it is clear that prima facie, the offence is made

out against the present applicant in the matter and, therefore, it is

not a fit case to quash and set aside the proceedings by invoking the

powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

13. In light of the submission of both the parties, it will be

first necessary to consider the fact whether the ingredients of

Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are satisfied in

the present matter.

14. Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code is reads as under:

"Section 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.]"

As per this provision, it is necessary to establish by the

prosecution that due to the obscene act on the part of applicant,

annoyance was caused to others and said act has been taken place

in public or near any public place.

15. In the present matter, after perusal of the complaint as

well as the statement of the witnesses recorded by the investigating

officer, it is not clear that anyone of the vicinity caused any

annoyance due to the obscene words used by the applicant in the

alleged incident. On the contrary, it is clear from the record that

immediately when the quarrel between the applicant and non-

applicant No.2 was started, the friends of the non-applicant No.2

Chetan Kadu and others has interfered and resolved the quarrel.

Therefore, it is clear that there is no prime facie evidence available

on record to satisfy the condition that due to the obscene act,

annoyance was caused to others in the vicinity. Therefore, prima

facie, the ingredients of Section 294 of the Act are not satisfied in

the matter.

16. The applicant in support of his submission has relied

upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Dnyanoba and

others Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its Police Inspector,

Police Station, Latur (Rural) Tq. Latur Dist. Latur and others 2018

ALL MR(Cri) 4933. In the said judgment, this Court by relying upon

the judgment of Narendra H. Khurana V. Commissioner (2004

CrLJ3393 [Bom]) has held that the basic requirement for attracting

the offence under Section 294 is that the utterance of obscene act

should be of such a nature, whereby the annoyance is caused to

others. If such annoyance is not caused or not established, then

offence under Section 294 is not attracted in the matter. This Court

in paragraph No.9 of the judgment observed as under:

"9. Thus the basics are required to be kept in mind even while assessing whether a song recital or utterance is obscene or not. Another fact that is required to be seen from the facts of this case itself that, as per the FIR Narayan and Manohar were proceeding from the road which was in the field of informant. It cannot be said to be a public place. Even if for the sake of arguments it can be said that, the said place can be a private place but within public view yet further ingredients that is required to be proved under Section 294 of Indian Penal code is that, such act which is said to be an obscene act should annoy others. In Narendra H. Khurana v. Commissioner (2004 CrLJ 3393 [Bom]), the Division Bench of this Court examined the question,

"Whether the nude cabaret dances which are per se indecent and obscene, held in a restaurant on purchase of tickets would warrant prosecution under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code in the absence of express evidence of annoyance by any of the persons who attend such shows?"

It was held that,

"cabaret dances where indecent and obscene act per se is involved, would not attract the provision of Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code without fulfillment of its essential ingredients namely evidence pertaining to "annoyance to others""

17. In respect of the offence under Section 321 of the

Indian Penal Code, which reads as under:

"Section 321. Voluntarily causing hurt. - Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily to cause hurt."

According to this provision, it is necessary to establish that

the accused does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt

to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to

cause hurt to any person and does thereby cause hurt is said

voluntarily to cause hurt.

18. Therefore, in view of this provision, the requirement to

attract provision of Section 321 and punishment under Section 323,

there should be an intention to cause hurt to other person and with

the knowledge that any such act would cause hurt, then only this

provision is attracted.

19. In the present case, from the perusal of the record, it is

clear that applicant did not approach to the shop where non-

applicant No.1 was seated with his friend with an intention to cause

hurt. It is the own case of the non-applicant No.2 that while he was

sitting in the shop of his friend Chetan Kadu, applicant reached

there to purchase a water can and after that the quarrel was taken

place. Hence, it cannot be said that there was any intention or with

that intention the hurt was caused to the non-applicant No.2.

Therefore, the intention of the applicants, which is required under

Section 321, is not satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the

present case.

20. The non-applicant No.2 has relied upon the medical

report to state that there were nail scratches seen over the neck

towards the right side of the non-applicant No.2 and, therefore, it is

sufficient to hold that there was an injury caused to him. However,

if this report is minutely perused, it is clear that non-applicant No.2

was referred for medical examination on that chief complaint that

there was pain over the right elbow and to his back. But, there is no

opinion of the Medical Officer about any pain to the right elbow or

the back of the non-applicant No.2. Only the nail scratches are

recorded to be seen over the neck of the non-applicant No.2. In my

opinion, only of having the nail scratches towards the right side of

the non-applicant No.2 is not sufficient to hold that the applicant

has caused voluntarily hurt to the non-applicant No.2.

21. For the offence under Section 506, the definition which

is given under Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code, which

reproduced as under:

"503. Criminal intimidation. - 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 hat 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."

From the perusal of this provision, the necessary requirement

is that the person with a purpose desists the another one to do any

act, which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do any act for

avoiding the execution of such a threat or commits criminal

intimidation. In the present case, considering the nature of incident,

the ingredients of Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code are not

satisfied and, therefore, no offence is made out under Section 506

of the Indian Penal Code.

22. It is also necessary to note down in the matter that

though this Court has held that the offence is not made out under

the provisions of Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code, but it is expected from the advocates fraternity that they