Mere Use Of Abusive Or Defamatory Language Not Sufficient To Constitute Offence U/S 294 IPC: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that the mere use of abusive, filthy, or defamatory language is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unless the act is obscene and causes annoyance to others in or near a public place. The Court reiterated that annoyance and obscenity are both essential ingredients of the offence and must be...
The Bombay High Court has held that the mere use of abusive, filthy, or defamatory language is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unless the act is obscene and causes annoyance to others in or near a public place. The Court reiterated that annoyance and obscenity are both essential ingredients of the offence and must be specifically established through evidence.
For context, Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) penalises obscene acts and songs performed in public places, punishable by up to three months imprisonment, a fine, or both.
Justice M.M. Nerlikar was hearing a criminal writ petition filed to quash orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, and the Sessions Court, which had refused to discharge him from charges under Sections 294, 427, 504, 506, and 352 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The petitioner was accused of damaging office property and using abusive language against the Principal of a Government College.
The petitioner argued that even if the allegations in the charge sheet were taken at face value, no offence under Section 294 IPC was made out, as none of the material in the charge sheet attracted the ingredients of Section 294.
The Court noted that the petitioner damaged property by breaking glass and also damaged a TV with the help of a rod. Additionally, the petitioner used filthy language and abused the principal, resulting in an estimated loss of Rs. 1,00,000.
The Court observed that the mere use of abusive or filthy language is not sufficient, in itself, to attract the provisions of Section 294 IPC. The Court highlighted that the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer do not indicate that any person was annoyed by the utterances of the petitioner.
“… 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… 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,” the Court observed.
The Court further remarked that the petitioner committed the offence due to frustration over the non-payment of his retirement benefits, and he was questioning the principal on that aspect, and threatened to release the benefits of the General Provident Fund (GPF).
The Court held that 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. It observed that both the Courts below committed a grave error in not considering the scope, ambit and ingredients of Section 294.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the orders of the Magistrate and the Sessions Court to the extent they refused to discharge the petitioner under Section 294 IPC, while keeping other charges intact.
Case Title: Amit Ashok Jagdale v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition No. 240 of 2025]