Karnataka High Court Quashes Offence U/s. 294 IPC
The Karnataka High Court quashed a criminal case registered under Sections 294, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, against a contractor and a flat resident who were involved with the laborers in digging a rainwater harvesting pit in an apartment complex. The High Court took note of the fact that the accused persons were not alleged to have committed any indecent act as contemplated under Section 294 of the IPC and there was nothing to show they had criminally intimidated the complainant.
The criminal petition before the High Court was filed under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the entire proceedings registered under Sections 294, 504, 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, “As the petitioners are not alleged of any obscene act in a public place and they are not alleged of singing obscene songs in a public place, it is ununderstandable as to where from the Police could trace the obscene songs being sung by these petitioners in a public place, while filing the charge sheet. There is neither public setting in its true sense nor any indecent act as contemplated under Section 294 of the IPC. Therefore, the offence under Section 294 of the IPC is loosely laid against these petitioners.”
Advocate Adit Chandangoudar represented the Petitioner while Addl. SPP B.N. Jagadeesha represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was the case of the prosecution that the second respondent/complainant registered a private complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The complainant, a resident in an apartment complex, is the owner and in possession of a Flat. The first Accused is a resident in another flat, and the third accused is a civil contractor. It was the case of the complainant that when she was on her way to the hospital, to take care of her mother, she noticed six members near the apartment in the garden area including the resident and the contractor.
The complainant was informed that these people had come to clean the apartment and dig a rainwater harvesting pit. When the complainant questioned them, they allegedly used harsh words and sang some filthy songs. The Police conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet against the 6 accused for using filthy language against the complainant.
Reasoning
The Bench found that the issue in the lis revolved around the mandate of BWSSB and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The Government had issued circulars/Government orders with regard to the mandatory installation of rainwater harvesting in every individual house and apartment complex. In the block, in which the accused and the complainant were residing, there was admittedly no rainwater harvesting done. To comply with the mandate, the third accused was entrusted with the job of digging a pit for the purpose of rainwater harvesting.
The Bench said, “The complaint is voluminous, yet materially thin. It alludes to name calling, alleged insults and vague references to character assassination. However, the embellishments that have emerged in the charge sheet are conspicuously absent in the original complaint, which would become retrospective additions tailored for effect.”
The Bench explained that Section 294 of IPC punishes a person who performs obscene acts and sings obscene songs in a public place. Reference was made to the judgment of the Apex Court in N.S. Madhanagopal V. K.Lalitha (2022) wherein it has been held that mere abusive or humiliating language accompanied by lasciviousness does not constitute obscenity.
The Bench noted that there was nothing that would point to the petitioners’ criminally intimidating the complainant. The petitioners were doing their job, complying with the mandate of BWSSB for the installation of rainwater harvesting in every area. The complainant ought not to have objected to the execution of mandate of law. Notwithstanding the same, a civil suit was also instituted seeking an injunction against BWSSB and office bearers not to comply with the installation of rain water harvesting on the ground there was enough rainfall.
“Having filed a suit for injunction, on an imaginary plea of hurling abuses, the complainant could not have set the criminal law into motion. While the allegations have no bearing on what the civil Court would do, but the contents of the complaint and the summary of charge sheet leave one in doubt as to what is the offence committed by these petitioners”, the Bench said.
“The proceedings reek of malafides and appear to have been initiated not to vindicate justice, but to harass and entangle the petitioners in legal rigmarole. In view of the preceding analysis and the judgments of the Apex Court quoted supra, permitting further trial against these petitioners would become an abuse of the process of law and result in patent injustice”, the Bench held while allowing the Petition and quashing the impugned proceedings.
Cause Title: Malavika Periyaswamy v. The State of Karnataka (Criminal Petition No.11368 of 2024)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Adit Chandangoudar
Respondent: Addl. SPP B.N.Jagadeesha, Advocate R. Raja
