High Court

Legal Reasoning

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3725 OF 2024Ramesh Gopal Lingayat And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And AnotherMr. P. P. Patni a/w Mr. Ram Malani h/f Mr. A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for ApplicantsMs. R. P. Gour, APP for Respondent No.1/StateCORAM: Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.DATE: 03rd September, 2025PER COURT :-1.Present application has been filed invoking inherent powers of thisCourt for quashment of proceedings in SCC No. 11355/2021 pending beforelearned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad arising out of FIR videCrime No. 520/2021 registered with City Chowk Police Station, DistrictAurangabad on 18.10.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 294,323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C”)2.Heard learned Advocate Mr. P. P. Patni along with Mr. RamMalani for the applicants and learned APP for respondent No. 1. Thoughrespondent No. 2-informant was duly served failed to appear.41-Cri Appln-3725-2024.odt1 of 6 3.Learned Advocate for the applicants has taken us through theentire charge sheet including the FIR and submits that perusal of the FIRwould show that there was a dispute in respect of the space were the informantwas allegedly selling articles in the market. She was not even knowing thenames of applicant Nos. 3 and 4 yet she has involved them also. Now it isstated by her that applicant No. 1 by using obscene words had abused her andthereafter she was assaulted by hands made to lie on ground and assaulted withkicks and feasts in her stomach. She states that she was rescued by her twosons Rohit and Dipak and then it is stated that the applicants had threatenedher. If we consider these allegations, the basic ingredients of the offence underSection 294 of I.P.C are not getting attracted and the other offences are noncognizable in nature. The charge sheet would show that there are statements ofinterested witnesses only i.e., the husband, two sons and son-in-law of theinformant. In such circumstance, it would be an abuse of process of law, if theapplicants are asked to face the trial.4.Learned APP opposes the application and submits that theinformant who is lady, has been abused by using obscene language. Though, itis stated that the witnesses are the relatives yet the incident is taken place in themarket area that too at the time of Diwali and, therefore, there would have beena rush in the market. In such circumstance, there is scope to believe that it41-Cri Appln-3725-2024.odt2 of 6 could have cause the public annoyance. Further the ingredients of the offenceunder Section 509 of I.P.C. which is also cognizable offence would getattracted taking into consideration the use of obscene words. Since the chargesheet has been filed, let there be trial.5.At the outset, it is to be noted that the incident is alleged to havetaken place at 08:30 PM on 16.10.2021 in front of Gattani Building inGulmandi Parking area. The names of applicant Nos. 3 and 4 who are the wifeand daughter of applicant No. 1 were not even known to the informant yet theyhave been involved. The question would then be in respect of the intention.The alleged obscene words are stated to have been used by applicant No. 1.There cannot be a common intention of utterances of abusive language and,therefore, there cannot be offence under Section 294 read with 34 of I.P.C. Atthe most then as against applicant Nos. 3 and 4, there would be offence underSection 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C which are non cognizable in nature. Witnesses,whose statements have been recorded under Section 161 of Criminal ProcedureCode, are the husband-Ramesh, son-Dipak, daughter-in-law – Pratibha andson-in-law – Kumar. Interesting point to be noted is that all these witnesseshave stated that they had gone to a nearby hotel for taking a cup of tea andinformant was alone handling the customers in the shop (it is not a regular shopbut a street shop or as a street vendor). When these witnesses heard the voice41-Cri Appln-3725-2024.odt3 of 6 of the informant, they went running to the spot and at that time they found thatthe applicants were assaulting informant. They rescued the informant and thenwhen asked to the informant as to what has happened then she told about theabuses given to her by applicant No. 1. Therefore, these witnesses were notpresent at all when the alleged abuses were given. In respect of the abuses whatthey have stated is hearsay in nature.6.In order to secure a conviction, the provisions of Section 294 ofI.P.C require two particulars to be proved by the prosecution namely one theoffender has done any obscene act in any public place or has sung, recited oruttered any obscene song or word in or near to be place, and second as songcaused annoyance to others. If the Act is not obscene, or has not been done inany public place, or the song, recite or utter in or near any public place or thatit causes no annoyance to others, no offence is committed. This has been soheld in Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana 1996 4 SCC 17. Here, this isabsolutely no offence regarding causing of annoyance to the public because ofthe said alleged utterance of the obscene word though there appears to be thespot panchnama regarding the public place. In other words except thestatement of the informant regarding utterance of obscene words, there isnothing in the charge sheet. Therefore, definitely, ingredients of Section 294 ofI.P.C are not getting attracted which is the only cognizable offence as stated by41-Cri Appln-3725-2024.odt4 of 6 the prosecution in the charge sheet.7.Now learned APP has tried to say that the material in the chargesheet would disclose the offence under Section 509 of I.P.C. Now in respect ofthis, we would like to say that in order to secure conviction for the offenceunder Section 509, there should be utterance of the words with an intention toinsult the modesty of any woman intending that such word or sound shall beheard by such woman. Now in the present case, the case is made out what theoffence under Section 509, would be a question. We would like to take note ofthe FIR wherein there is absolutely no clear statement that there was dispute inrespect of the space were informant and her family members were conductingthe affairs of the shop or sell business. Rather she has stated that the ApplicantNo. 1 asked as to why she was carrying out the selling activity in front of hisshop. Perusal of the spot panchanama will not indicate that there was the shopbelonging to applicant No. 1 nearby the spot of incident. In the statements ofwitnesses which are taken belatedly i.e., after around 14 days of incident all ofthem have stated that there was dispute between the informant’s family and theapplicants in respect of the space were the informant and the family werecarrying out the business and it is stated that the said dispute was going onsince many days. There is no document in the entire charge sheet showing thatthe informants and her family had taken any license from the Municipal41-Cri Appln-3725-2024.odt5 of 6 Authorities for conducting the affairs of the shop in respect of that space werethe alleged incident had taken place. Therefore, possibility of implication dueto the dispute cannot be ruled out and, therefore, with the said material, itwould be an abuse of process of law to ask the applicants to face the trial. Thecase is squarely covered under the guidelines of State of Haryana vs.Bhajanlal AIR 1992 SC 604 hence, we proceed to pass following order :-O R D E R1.Application stands allowed.2.The proceedings SCC No. 11355/2021 pending beforelearned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad arising out of FIRby Crime No. 520/2021 registered with City Chowk Police Station,District Aurangabad on 18.10.2021 for the offences punishable underSections 294, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of I.P.C stands quashedand set aside as against all the applicants.(Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.)( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)bsj41-Cri Appln-3725-2024.odt6 of 6