Vandana Dhammadip Gautam vs State of Maharasahtra Thr Pso Ps Mul Chandrapur Tah Mul Dist Chandrapur

By this application applicant is seeking to exercise inherent powers under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita and praying for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with crime No.250/2025 registered at Police Station Mul District Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the applicant who submitted that the crime is registered on the report lodged by nonapplicant No.2 alleging that present applicant and non-applicant No.2 are neighbours and applicant is in habit of raising the quarrels. On 08.07.2025 also there was dispute between them on account of parking vehicle. At that time present applicant has abused him in filthy language by saying तु�हि�थे�गा�डी�ला�वा�यची�ना��असे� म्�णा�ला�असेतु�मी�तु�ला�म्��ला�की�, तु�मीची�घरहितुकीडी�ला��बआ��वामी�मी�झी�गा�डी�मी�र�श्वर हिनामीगाडी�ला�वातुआ��तु�म्��ला�त्य�ची�की�यत्रा�सेआ��असे�म्�णा�ला�असेतु�गा"रअर्ज$दा�र��मी�झ्य� हि'व्य�घ्य�यला�ला�गाला�वाकी�त्रा�तु�ला�से��गा�नासेमीर्जतुना��की�ब�यकी�च्य�भा�इय�ब�यकी�ची�भा�डी

¶26

खा�य�, तु�झ्य�मी�य�ला��पो�अ'�अहि/लाभा�प्तमी�नासे�से�रखा�हि'वा�दा�वा�नामी�झ्य�वारतु�से�इडीना� डीब्य�ना�मी�रला�आहिणासे�ल्य�तु�ला�फसेवाणा�रतु�की�सेमीर्जला�सेम्�णा�नामीला�अ/�ला'ब्दा�तु

¶27

3

¶28

65 apl 1752.25.odt..odt

¶29

हि'वा�गा�ळहिदाला�वामी�रण्य�ची�धमीकी�हिदाला�. On the basis of the said report police have registered the crime against the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that except the allegations of filthy language there is no allegations that the words uttered by present applicant created annoyance to him and thereby offence under Section 294 is made out. He submitted that mere abuses are not sufficient to attract the offence punishable under Section 294 of the IPC. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.240 of 2025 (Amit Ashok Jagdale vs. State of Maharashtra) decided on 22.09.2025.

¶30

Learned APP for the State strongly opposed the said contention and submitted that recitals of the FIR itself shows that applicant has abused informant in filthy language and the intention of the applicant is revealed from the said statement. In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.

¶31

Section 294 deals with obscene acts and songs which reproduced as under:-

¶32

It is pertinent to note that opening line of Section 294 states

¶33

whoever, to the annoyance of others:

¶34

65 apl 1752.25.odt..odt

¶35

4

¶36

(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished.

¶37

The ingredients which are required to be attracted are

¶38

offender has done any obscene act in any public place and has so caused annoyance to the others.

¶39

From the recitals of the FIR there is no averment that

¶40

due to the words uttered by the present applicant there was an annoyance to either to present non-applicant No.2 or any other person. This aspect is considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. , reported in Manu/SC/0134/2025 and it is observed that in so far as Section 294 of the IPC is concerned, this Court in the case N.S. Madan Gopal and another vs. K. Lalita reported in (2022) 17 SCC 18 wherein it is observed that it has to be noted that “the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b). None of the records disclose the alleged words used by the accused. It may not be the requirement of law to reproduce in all cases the entire obscene words if it is lengthy,

¶41

65 apl 1752.25.odt..odt

¶42

5

¶43

but in the instant case, there is hardly anything on record. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. Thus, even accepting the allegations as it is no offence is made out under Section 294 of the IPC as there is nothing on record to show that by utterance of the words the witnesses felt annoyed.

¶44

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court mere abuses are not sufficient to attract offence punishable under Section 294 of the IPC. The ingredients that there has to be annoyance to the others by uttering the said words is required for attracting the offence. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances no prima-facie case is made out to attract the provisions under Section 294 of the IPC (296 BNS) or under Section 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and therefore, application deserves to be allowed.

¶45

Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) The Criminal Application is allowed.

¶48

(ii) The First Information Report in connection with

¶49

crime No.250/2025 registered at Police Station Mul District

¶50

65 apl 1752.25.odt..odt

¶51

6

¶52

Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 296 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is quashed and set aside to the extent of the present applicant.

¶53

The criminal application stands disposed of in the above said terms.

¶54

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶55

(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)

¶56

manisha

¶57

Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 13/03/2026 10:30:50

Vandana Dhammadip Gautam v. State of Maharasahtra Thr Pso Ps Mul Chandrapur Tah Mul Dist Chandrapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandana Dhammadip Gautam v. State of Maharasahtra Thr Pso Ps Mul Chandrapur Tah Mul Dist Chandrapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sidharth Maroti Walde and Others vs Smita Vivek Walde

Amol Rameshwar Shingane and Others vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rameshwar Vishwanath Shingane vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Khallar Dist. Amravati Gramin and Another

Priti Agrawal W/O Ravi Agrawal vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Lakadganj

Yunus Ayyub Sheikh vs the State of Maharashtra (through Katol Police Station)

Manoj S/O Jeevatram Chhabada vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Sadar Nagpur