- (1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 for quashing of FIR No. 33/2013 dated 19.1.2013 under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) registered at Police Station Sushant Lok (Annexure P1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including charge-sheet (Annexure P2).
(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the FIR itself reveals that no offence could be said to have been committed by the petitioner. Complainant had failed to describe the words used by the petitioner or the acts done by the petitioner. The offence was, allegedly, committed in the veranda of the flat of the owner-Neena. Hence, it could not be said that the offence had been committed in a public place. Thus, the ingredients of offence under Section 294(b) could not be said to be made out in the present case. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on State vs. Thakur Prasad and others, 1959 AIR(All) 49 wherein it has been held as under:- "The word "obscene" is not defined in the Penal Code, but it may be taken as meaning offensive to or modesty expressing or personating to the mind or view something that delicacy, purity and forbid to be expressed;impure as obscene language obscene pictures anything expressing or unchaste and lustful ideas, impure indecent, lewd. The idea as to what is deemed as obscene of course varies from age to age and from region to region dependent upon particular social conditions." 'Learned senior counsel has next placed reliance on Ratti Ram vs,. The State,1969 71 PunLR 277 wherein it was held as under:- "In case of charge under Section 294, the prosecution has to establish the element of causing of annoyance to others by the person charged apart from the fact of the act of obscenity committed by him."
(3.) Learned senior counsel has next placed reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in V.Dhasiah and another vs. The State, 1994 2 Crimes 67 wherein it was held as under:- "Regarding the first submission, as pointed out by Mr. Paul Vasanthakumar, the allegations are only to the effect that accused 1 & 2 had talked about the witness No.1 'Tamil word'. It is not stated what were the words uttered. The word 'Tamil word' is as vague as anything. I am clear that the mere allegation 'Tamil word' cannot be equated to "obscene" words. So, regarding the offence under Section 294(b) IPC., the FIR is liable to be quashed.";