[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Bhojraj Megheshyam Vaidya And Another. vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Pauni, Tah. ... on 27 January, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:1872-DB




              Judgment

                                                              28 apl1146.23

                                           1

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

                   CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.1146 OF 2023

              1. Bhojraj Megheshyam Vaidya,
              age: 23 years, occupation: Sarpanch,
              r/o at post Mangli, Gandhi Ward,
              tahsil, Pauni, district Bhandara.

              2. Hiralal Dadaji Vaidya,
              aged 32 years, occupation: Deputy
              Sarpanch
              r/o Vitthal Rukhmai Mandir
              Ward, Mangli (Chauras),
              Bhandara.                     ..... Applicants.

                                   :: V E R S U S ::

              1. State of Maharashtra,
              through Police Station Officer,
              Police Station: Pauni,
              tahsil Pauni, district Bhandara.

              2. Vimal Vijay Khobragade,
              aged 58 years, occupation: housewife,
              r/o Mangli, tahsil Pauni,
              district Bhandara.            ..... Non-applicants.
              ==============================
              Ms Aparna Jha, Advocate h/f Shri A.A.Dhawas, Counsel
              for the Applicants.
              Shri A.M.Kadukar, APP for Non-applicant No.1/State.
              ==============================


                                                                    .....2/-
 Judgment

                                                   28 apl1146.23

                             2

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE : 27/01/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel Ms Aparna Jha for the

applicants and learned APP Shri A.M.Kadukar for the NA

No.1/State. Despite service, none appears for the non-

applicant No.2 (the informant). Admit. Heard finally by

consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. By this application, the applicants are seeking

quashing of the FIR in connection with Crime

No.0185/2023 registered for offences under Sections

294, 504, and 506 of the IPC and 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and consequent

proceeding arising out of the same bearing Special Case

No.80/2023.

.....3/-

Judgment

28 apl1146.23

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

lodged by the non-applicant No.2 (the informant) on

allegations that she is residing in village Pauni and she

belongs to "Mahar Community". As per allegations on

26.4.2023, when she was at home, the applicants came to

her home and told her that they would not provide her

place for construction of "Gharkul" under the "Gharkul

Scheme" and also threatened that they would remove her

out of the village as well as she was abused in a filthy

language by saying that, "----- ek;jhus /ksMhus] lkyh eknjpksn rq>k

cka/kdke can] vls cksyyk-----" On the basis of the said report,

the police have registered the crime against the

applicants.

4. After registration of the crime, investigation was

carried out and various statements are recorded and after

completion of the investigation, chargesheet is submitted.

.....4/-

Judgment

28 apl1146.23

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that

by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the words

uttered by the applicants attract either offence under

Section 294 of the IPC or under the provisions of Section

3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. She

submitted that the provisions of the Atrocities Act are not

applicable as the alleged incident has not taken place

"within the public view". She submitted that recital of the

FIR and various statements of witnesses show that the

alleged incident has taken place in the house of the

informant and, therefore, this place is not "the public

view".

In support of her contentions, she has placed

reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Karuppudayar vs. State, rep. by the Deputy

.....5/-

Judgment

28 apl1146.23

Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy and ors, reported

in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 215.

She further submitted that offences under Sections

504 and 506 of the IPC are also not made out as there is

nothing on record to show that there was any criminal

antecedents against the applicants. Thus, no prima facie

case is made out. In view of that, compelling the

applicants to face trial would be abuse of process of law.

In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned APP for the State strongly

opposed the said contentions and submitted that

statement of the informant specifically shows that she was

abused in a filthy language which is sufficient to attract

Section 294 of the IPC. The threat given to her also

discloses that there was a "criminal intimidation". The

applicants who are Sarpancha and Deputy Sarpanch of

.....6/-

Judgment

28 apl1146.23

the said village were aware about the fact that she

belongs to the "Scheduled Caste Community." Despite

they were knowing the same, she was abused "within the

public view" and, therefore, a prima facie case is made

out against the applicants and, therefore, the application

deserves to be rejected.

7. After hearing both the sides and perusing the entire

investigation papers, it reveals that there was a dispute

between the applicants and the informant on account of

providing the informant a place in the village for

constructing a house under "Scheme of Pantapradhan

Awas Yojana". As per allegation, on 26.4.2023, both the

applicants came to her house and abused her in a filthy

language as well as threatened her. During the

investigation, various statements of witnesses are

recorded and it revealed that all the witnesses are

relatives of the informant. The statements of witnesses

.....7/-

Judgment

28 apl1146.23

nowhere show that the said incident has taken place

"within the public view".

8. Learned counsel for the applicants has rightly

placed reliance on the decision in the case of

Karuppudayar supra, wherein by referring the earlier

judgment in the case of as Swaran Singh vs. State,

reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435, the Hon'ble Apex Court

has held, as under:

"Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh vs. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 :

(2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and

.....8/-

Judgment

28 apl1146.23

the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view."

9. In the light of the above observations, if the

allegations are taken into consideration, admittedly,

except statements of witnesses, there is no statement of

any independent witnesses to show that the alleged

incident has taken place "within the public view." On the

contrary, recital of the FIR shows that the applicants came

at her home and the alleged incident has taken place at

her house.

.....9/-

Judgment

28 apl1146.23

10. As far as offence under Section 294 of the IPC is

concerned, the allegation is that she was abused by the

applicants in a filthy language.

11. 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".

12. As far as "obscenity" is concerned, the

observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

N.S. Madhanagopal and anr vs. K.Lalitha, reported in

(2022), 17 SCC 818 are relevant wherein it is laid down

the test of "obscenity" under Section 294 of the IPC and

.....10/-

Judgment

28 apl1146.23

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 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) of the IPC."

.....11/-

Judgment

28 apl1146.23

13. Thus, to attract the offence under Section 294 of

the IPC, mere filthy language or mere abuses are not

sufficient, but there must be a further proof to establish

that it was to annoyance of others, which is lacking in

the case.

14. As far as offences under Sections 504 and 506 are

concerned, it is alleged that the informant was

threatened by the applicants.

15. Section 503 of the IPC deals with "criminal

intimidation" 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

.....12/-

Judgment

28 apl1146.23

avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal

intimidation".

16. Section 506 of the IPC deals with "punishment for

criminal intimidation."

17. Thus, ingredients required to attract Section 503 of

the IPC are; (i) threatening a person with any injury; (ii)

to his person, reputation or property; or (iii) to the person

or reputation of any one in whom that person is

interested.

18. Thus, Section 504 of the IPC contemplates

intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking

such person insulted to breach the peace and intentionally

insulting a person knowing it to be likely that a person

insulted may be provoked so as to cause a breach of public

peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse may

not come within the purview of this Section.

.....13/-

Judgment

28 apl1146.23

19. In view of that, the application of Section 506 of

the IPC is also doubtful in the present case.

20. It is further alleged by the informant that she was

abused on caste though the applicants were knowing that

she belongs to the "Scheduled Caste Community".

For that purpose, the observations of the Hon'ble

Apex Court, in Criminal Appeal No.2622/2024 (Shajan

Skaria vs. The State of Kerala and anr) are relevant to be

referred wherein it is held that to attract the offence

under Section 3(1)(r) of the Atrocities Act, basic

ingredients to constitute offence are; (a) accused person

must not be a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled

Tribe; (b) accused must intentionally insult or

intimidate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled

Tribe; (c) accused must do so with the intent to

.....14/-

Judgment

28 apl1146.23

humiliate such a person; and (d) accused must do so at

any place within public view.

It has been further held that, "all insults or

intimidation to a member of the Scheduled Caste or

Scheduled Tribe will not amount to an offence under

the Act, 1989 unless such insult or intimidation is on the

ground that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or

Scheduled Tribe".

21. This type of the allegations are absent in the

present case. In view of that, the allegations levelled

against the applicants to attract the offences alleged are

not sufficient and, therefore, forcing or compelling the

applicants to face trial would abuse of process of law.

22. 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

.....15/-

Judgment

28 apl1146.23

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:

"(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;

.....16/-

Judgment

28 apl1146.23

(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 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

.....17/-

Judgment

28 apl1146.23

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".

23. By applying the above said principles, and if the

facts and circumferences of the present case are taken

into consideration, admittedly, no prima facie case is

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

application deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to

pass following order: