Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal observed that the absence of allegations of annoyance and alleged stated words to be obscene words cannot attract the charge under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court was hearing the matter of Prafulla Kumar Jaiswal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.

What is the Background of Prafulla Kumar Jaiswal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Case?

• Two complainants submitted a joint application in writing before the Police alleging that they were the Newspaper Journalists, and on the information received, they were gone to cover the matter in Bihta village, Madhya Pradesh where the accused abused them in response to instigation by one other person.
• The complainants alleged that the accused also threatened to damage their camera and were attempting to manhandle them.
• The complainants lodged a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 294 and 506 of the IPC, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC).
• The accused filed the present petition before the HC to quash the FIR.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court observed that necessary ingredients for an offence under Section 294 and 506-II of IPC are neither made out from the contents of complaint submitted in writing on the basis of which FIR was registered almost after one month nor from the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

What is Section 294 of IPC?

• Introduction:
  • Section 294 of IPC deals with obscenity and its various manifestations in society which seeks to strike a balance between individual freedom of expression and maintaining public decency and morality.
• Key Provision:
  • Section 294 of IPC: Obscene acts and songs.—Whoever, to the annoyance of others—
    • does any obscene act in any public place, or
    • 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.
• Elements of the Provision:
  • Obscene Acts:
    • The section covers any obscene act performed in a public place.
    • The term "obscene" is not precisely defined in the IPC, but it generally refers to any act that is sexually explicit or offensive, going against the prevailing standards of decency.
  • Obscene Songs, Ballads, or Words:
    • This aspect extends the coverage of the law to verbal forms of obscenity.
  • To the Annoyance of Others:
    • The acts or expressions should be done in a manner that causes annoyance to others.
    • This requirement is essential to ensure that the law does not infringe on individual freedom of expression more than necessary.

What are the Major Cases Related to Section 294 of IPC?

• Ranjit Udaram Kharote v. State of Maharashtra (1964):
  • This case established that the test for obscenity under Section 294 should be based on contemporary community standards.
  • It also emphasized that artistic, scientific, or literary merit could be considered as a valid defence against charges of obscenity.
• Om Prakash v. State of M.P (1989):
  • The Madhya Pradesh HC held that mere platitudinous utterances signifying the enraged state of person’s mind would not be sufficient to attract Section 294 of IPC.
• N.S. Madhanagopal and Another v. K. Lalitha (2022):
  • The Supreme Court held that mere abusive, humiliating or defamatory words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) of IPC but there must be further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case.