Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-NAG:2440-DB
Judgment
1 apl110.25
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.110 of 2025
Mangesh s/o Bhojraj Urade,
age- 40 years, occupation- private,
r/o Rakelwad, taluka Saoner,
district Nagpur. ….. Applicant.
:: V E R S U S ::
1. State of Maharashtra,
through– PSO – Kelwad,
district- Nagpur.
2. Vitthal s/o Marotrao Kamdi,
age- 71 years, occupation– private,
r/o ward No.2, Beedgaon,
taluka Saoner, district– Nagpur. ….. Non-applicants.
==============================
Shri S.S.Kulkarni, Counsel for the Applicant.
Shri Nikhil Joshi, APP for Non-applicant No.1/State.
None appears for the Non-applicant N.2.
==============================
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE : 05/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned
APP for the State. Despite service, none appears for the non-
applicant No.2. Admit. Heard finally by consent.
.....2/-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
2
2. By the present application, the applicant is seeking
quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.46/2023
registered for offences under Sections 195-A, 294, and 506 of
the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same
bearing chargesheet No.54/2023.
3. The crime is registered against the applicant on the
basis of a report lodged by Vitthal Marotrao Kamdi on
allegation that, in his village, the applicant is residing, who is
a mischievous person and offences are registered against him.
On 16.3.2023, at about 4:00 pm, when he was proceeding
towards Bank of India, the applicant called him and abused
him in a filthy language as well as threatened him. On the
basis of the said report, the police have registered the crime
against the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even
accepting the allegations as it is, at its face value, the offence
under Section 294 of the IPC is not made out as mere abuses
.....3/-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
3
are not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 294 of
the IPC.
He further submitted that as far as the offence under
Section 506 of the IPC is concerned, the same is also not
made out as there is nothing on record to show that there was
criminal intimidation by the applicant by threatening the
person with an injury or by threatening the person’s
reputation or property.
In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned APP for the State has strongly
opposed the said contentions and submitted that considering
the language used by the applicant and considering fact that
there are offences registered against the applicant of the
similar nature, the application deserves to rejected.
6. On hearing both the sides and perusing the entire
investigation papers, it reveals that the applicant is charged
for the offence under Section 294 of the IPC.
.....4/-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
4
7. Section 294 of the IPC talks about obscene acts and
songs. The said Section is reproduced as under for
reference:
“294. Obscene acts and songs.- Whoever, to the
annoyance of others – (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 with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three months, or with fine,
or with both”.
8. Perusal of the entire FIR shows that the words used
by the applicant are that, “….. eyk vf’yy f’kohxkG fnyh dh]
lkY;k eknjpksn tj rw dk ek>;k fo#/n dksVkZr lk{k fnyh] rj rqyk
dks.kR;krjh [kksV;k xqUg;kr Qloqu Vkdhu vls cksywu rqyk ikgqu ?ksbZu vls
”
Eg.kwu /kedh fnyh-
Even, if it is accepted at its value, admittedly, it does
not pass “test of obscenity”.
.....5/-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
5
9. The “test of obscenity” is referred by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of N.S. Madhanagopal and anr vs.
K.Lalitha, reported in (2022), 17 SCC 818 wherein it is laid
down the “test of obscenity” under Section 294(b) of the IPC
and observed that, “whether the tendency of the matter
charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose
minds are open to such immoral influences.”
It has been further observed that, “this test has been
uniformly followed in India. The Supreme Court has
accepted the correctness of the test in Ranjit D. Udeshi vs.
State of Maharashtra, reported in MANU/SC/0080/1964
that the “test of obscenity” is the ‘substantial tendency to
corrupt by arousing lustful desires’.”
“In order to be “obscene” the matter must “tend to
sexually impure thoughts. I do not think that the words
uttered in this case have such a tendency. It may be that the
words are defamatory of the complainant, but I do not think
.....6/-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
6
that the words are “obscene” and the utterance would
constitute an offence punishable under Section 294(b) of
the IPC.”
10. Thus, to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of
the IPC, some lascivious elements showing sexual thoughts
or feelings are the requirements.
11. In the present case, record does not disclose that the
alleged words used by the applicant are attracting any
lascivious elements.
12. It is further considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Om Prakash Ambadkar vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in MANU/SC/0134/2025, “mere
utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must
be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance
of others, which is lacking in the case”.
.....7/-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
7
13. No one has spoken about the “obscene” words and
due to that, he felt annoyed and, therefore, the ingredients
are absent in the present case.
14. As far as Section 506 of the IPC is concerned, it deals
with criminal intimidation for which threatening a person
with an injury or by threatening a person’s reputation or
property is the requirement. To attract Section 506 of the
IPC, threat must be with an intent
15. Thus, considering all these aspects and applying the
same to the present case, admittedly, offences under
Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC are not made out.
16. In view of that, no prima facie case is made out
against the applicant.
17. The law relating to quashing of FIRs was explained by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and
ors vs. Bhajan Lal and ors, reported in 1992 Supplementary
(1) SCC 335 wherein principles have been laid down which
.....8/-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
8
are required to be considered while considering applications
for quashing of the FIRs, which read as under:
“(a) where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information
Report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investi- gation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
.....9/-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
9
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
.....10/-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
10
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge”.
18. In this view of the matter, prima facie case is not
made out against the applicant. In view of that, the
application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed
to pass following order:
ORDER
(1) The criminal application is allowed.
(2) The FIR in connection with Crime No.46/2023 registered
for offences under Sections 195-A, 294, and 506 of the IPC
and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing
chargesheet No.54/2023 are hereby quashed and set aside to
the extent of applicant Mangesh s/o Bhojraj Urade.
Application stands disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 13/02/2026 10:16:22
...../-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.110 of 2025
Mangesh s/o Bhojraj Urade,
age- 40 years, occupation- private,
r/o Rakelwad, taluka Saoner,
district Nagpur. ….. Applicant.
:: V E R S U S ::
1. State of Maharashtra,
through– PSO – Kelwad,
district- Nagpur.
2. Vitthal s/o Marotrao Kamdi,
age- 71 years, occupation– private,
r/o ward No.2, Beedgaon,
taluka Saoner, district– Nagpur. ….. Non-applicants.
==============================
Shri S.S.Kulkarni, Counsel for the Applicant.
Shri Nikhil Joshi, APP for Non-applicant No.1/State.
None appears for the Non-applicant N.2.
==============================
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
DATE : 05/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned
APP for the State. Despite service, none appears for the non-
applicant No.2. Admit. Heard finally by consent.
.....2/-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
2
2. By the present application, the applicant is seeking
quashing of FIR in connection with Crime No.46/2023
registered for offences under Sections 195-A, 294, and 506 of
the IPC and consequent proceeding arising out of the same
bearing chargesheet No.54/2023.
3. The crime is registered against the applicant on the
basis of a report lodged by Vitthal Marotrao Kamdi on
allegation that, in his village, the applicant is residing, who is
a mischievous person and offences are registered against him.
On 16.3.2023, at about 4:00 pm, when he was proceeding
towards Bank of India, the applicant called him and abused
him in a filthy language as well as threatened him. On the
basis of the said report, the police have registered the crime
against the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that even
accepting the allegations as it is, at its face value, the offence
under Section 294 of the IPC is not made out as mere abuses
.....3/-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
3
are not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 294 of
the IPC.
He further submitted that as far as the offence under
Section 506 of the IPC is concerned, the same is also not
made out as there is nothing on record to show that there was
criminal intimidation by the applicant by threatening the
person with an injury or by threatening the person’s
reputation or property.
In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned APP for the State has strongly
opposed the said contentions and submitted that considering
the language used by the applicant and considering fact that
there are offences registered against the applicant of the
similar nature, the application deserves to rejected.
6. On hearing both the sides and perusing the entire
investigation papers, it reveals that the applicant is charged
for the offence under Section 294 of the IPC.
.....4/-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
4
7. Section 294 of the IPC talks about obscene acts and
songs. The said Section is reproduced as under for
reference:
“294. Obscene acts and songs.- Whoever, to the
annoyance of others – (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 with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three months, or with fine,
or with both”.
8. Perusal of the entire FIR shows that the words used
by the applicant are that, “….. eyk vf’yy f’kohxkG fnyh dh]
lkY;k eknjpksn tj rw dk ek>;k fo#/n dksVkZr lk{k fnyh] rj rqyk
dks.kR;krjh [kksV;k xqUg;kr Qloqu Vkdhu vls cksywu rqyk ikgqu ?ksbZu vls
”
Eg.kwu /kedh fnyh-
Even, if it is accepted at its value, admittedly, it does
not pass “test of obscenity”.
.....5/-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
5
9. The “test of obscenity” is referred by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of N.S. Madhanagopal and anr vs.
K.Lalitha, reported in (2022), 17 SCC 818 wherein it is laid
down the “test of obscenity” under Section 294(b) of the IPC
and observed that, “whether the tendency of the matter
charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose
minds are open to such immoral influences.”
It has been further observed that, “this test has been
uniformly followed in India. The Supreme Court has
accepted the correctness of the test in Ranjit D. Udeshi vs.
State of Maharashtra, reported in MANU/SC/0080/1964
that the “test of obscenity” is the ‘substantial tendency to
corrupt by arousing lustful desires’.”
“In order to be “obscene” the matter must “tend to
sexually impure thoughts. I do not think that the words
uttered in this case have such a tendency. It may be that the
words are defamatory of the complainant, but I do not think
.....6/-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
6
that the words are “obscene” and the utterance would
constitute an offence punishable under Section 294(b) of
the IPC.”
10. Thus, to attract the offence under Section 294(b) of
the IPC, some lascivious elements showing sexual thoughts
or feelings are the requirements.
11. In the present case, record does not disclose that the
alleged words used by the applicant are attracting any
lascivious elements.
12. It is further considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Om Prakash Ambadkar vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in MANU/SC/0134/2025, “mere
utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must
be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance
of others, which is lacking in the case”.
.....7/-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
7
13. No one has spoken about the “obscene” words and
due to that, he felt annoyed and, therefore, the ingredients
are absent in the present case.
14. As far as Section 506 of the IPC is concerned, it deals
with criminal intimidation for which threatening a person
with an injury or by threatening a person’s reputation or
property is the requirement. To attract Section 506 of the
IPC, threat must be with an intent
15. Thus, considering all these aspects and applying the
same to the present case, admittedly, offences under
Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC are not made out.
16. In view of that, no prima facie case is made out
against the applicant.
17. The law relating to quashing of FIRs was explained by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and
ors vs. Bhajan Lal and ors, reported in 1992 Supplementary
(1) SCC 335 wherein principles have been laid down which
.....8/-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
8
are required to be considered while considering applications
for quashing of the FIRs, which read as under:
“(a) where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information
Report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investi- gation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
.....9/-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
9
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
.....10/-
Judgment
1 apl110.25
10
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge”.
18. In this view of the matter, prima facie case is not
made out against the applicant. In view of that, the
application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed
to pass following order:
ORDER
(1) The criminal application is allowed.
(2) The FIR in connection with Crime No.46/2023 registered
for offences under Sections 195-A, 294, and 506 of the IPC
and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing
chargesheet No.54/2023 are hereby quashed and set aside to
the extent of applicant Mangesh s/o Bhojraj Urade.
Application stands disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 13/02/2026 10:16:22
...../-