Mere Usage Of Humiliating Or Defamatory Words Are Not Sufficient To Attract Offence U/S 294 IPC: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court held that mere usage of humiliating or defamatory words are not sufficient to attract an offence related to obscenity under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The Nagpur Bench held thus in a Criminal Writ Petition filed by an accused seeking to quash the Order of the District and Sessions Judge and to discharge him.

A Single Bench of Justice M.M. Nerlikar observed, “Merely, because the word/s used may be humiliating or defamatory, those words by themselves are not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 294 of the IPC. It is further noted that, it seems from the FIR itself that the petitioner has committed offence, due to frustration over the non-payment of his retiral benefits and for that purpose he was questioning the principal and threatened to release the benefits of General Provident Fund (GPF).”

Advocate I.S. Charlewar appeared for the Petitioner/Accused, while APP A.M. Joshi appeared for the Respondent/State.

Factual Background

In 2020, the Office Superintendent at Government Polytechnic College, Shendurwafa, District Sakoli, lodged an FIR alleging that the Petitioner-accused accompanied by one lady entered her office and inquired about his salary and General Provident Fund (GPF). After that lady left, the accused allegedly broke the office glass with a rod. It was alleged that thereafter, the accused went to the Principal’s office, damaged the CCTV equipment, abused the Principal, and threatened to release the GPF. He allegedly caused loss of Rs. 1 lakh and issued threats. Consequently, an FIR was filed against him under Sections 427, 504, and 506 of IPC, read with Section 3 of the Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (DPP Act).

During the investigation, the witnesses stated that the accused used abusive language and caused damage. Based on this, charges were added under Sections 294, 336, and 392 of IPC. The accused was granted bail and he then filed an Application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for discharge, arguing that the charge-sheet lacked merit and failed to establish essential ingredients for the alleged offences. The Trial Court rejected his Application, against which he filed a Revision Petition. The Sessions Court dismissed the same and upheld the Trial Court’s Order. Being aggrieved, he was before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “… it is evident that the mere use of abusive, filthy, or unparliamentary language including the utterance of the words referred to above (in the Marathi language) is not sufficient, in itself, to attract the provisions of Section 294 IPC. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer do not indicate that any person was annoyed by such utterances.”

The Court noted that even though statements of some female members were also recorded, accepting those statements as it is, the ingredients of Section 294 IPC are not satisfied.

“… no prima facie case is made out to attract the provisions of Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, as the petitioner has restricted the present petition only to the extent of application of Section 294. The discussion is restricted only to that extent”, it added.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Criminal Writ Petition, quashed the impugned Order, and discharged the accused for the offence under Section 294 IPC.

Cause Title- Amit Ashok Jagdale v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:9454)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates I.S. Charlewar and K.E. Meshram.

Respondent: APP A.M. Joshi

Click here to read/download the Judgment