Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-NAG:1192-DB
111 APL 1128 19.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1128 OF 2019
1. Ku Mohini d/o Damodar Murkute
Aged about 27 years,
Occupation : Nil
2. Rakesh s/o Damodar Murkute
Aged about: 33 years,
Occupation: Business,
Both r/o Central Railway Colony,
Besa Road, Omkar Nagar, Nagpur
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Mul
Dist, Chandrapur
NON-APPLICANT
2. Sau. Vaishali w/o Subhash
Bhandarkar,
Aged about 50 years,
Occ: Service, R/o Tadala Road,
Mul, Tq. Mul, Dist. Chandrapur
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.T. Harkare, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. A.M. Joshi, APP for non-applicant No.1 /State.
Mr. A.P. Chaware, Advocate for the non-applicant No.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 19 .01.2026
O R A L J U D G M E N T :
1. Heard.
111 APL 1128 19.odt
2
2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal with the consent
of learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present application is preferred by the applicants
for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with
crime No.513/2017 registered with the non-applicant No.2-Police
Station under Sections 354-A, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code and chargesheet No.102/2017 and consequent proceeding
arising out of the same bearing RCC No.80/2017 pending in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Mul District Chandrapur.
4. The crime is registered on the basis of report lodged
by non-applicant No.2, on an allegation that on 29.06.2017 the
present applicants have abused her in filthy language when she
was fetching the water at the water tab. During investigation the
statement of the daughter of the present complainant was
recorded and from the statement it revealed that the present
applicants not only abused but also outrage the modesty of her
daughter by using the following wordings;-
,
राकेशनेमलातुझ्याघरातघुसतोवतुलाहेपतोदोन्हीबहिणीअशाचआहेत एकमुंबईलातर
10 .
दुसरीहेहेपायलाजातेतुम्हालातुमच्याआईने हजारातविकलेआहे मुलांचेएटीएमघेऊन
?
तुम्हीशॉपिंगलाजातानागपूरयेऊनआम्हालाकायसांगते
111 APL 1128 19.odt
3
On the basis of the said investigation papers the charge-sheet is
filed against the present applicants..
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicants who
submitted that as far as the prima-facie case is concerned it is not
revealed from the investigation papers that due to the civil
dispute between the parties FIR came to be lodged against the
present applicants. He submitted that no specific role is attributed
to the present applicants. In view of that the application deserves
to be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned APP and learned counsel for the
complainant strongly opposed the said contention and submitted
that not only the filthy language is used but they have outraged
the modesty. He submitted that considering the wordings used by
the present applicants it is sufficient to show the obscene act on
the part of the present applicants. In view of that application
deserves to be rejected.
7. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the
recitals of the FIR, wherein the allegations are levelled of abuses
when the complainant had been reported back to fetch the water.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.S. Madan Gopal and
another vs. K. Lalita reported in 2022(17) SCC 18 wherein laid
111 APL 1128 19.odt
4
down the test of obscenity under Section 294 (b) of the IPC
observed that “the test of obscenity is this whether the tendency of
the matter charge as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those
minds and open to such immoral influences.” This test has been
uniformly followed in India. The Hon’ble Apex Court has accepted
the correctness of the test in Ranjit D. Udeshi Vs. State of
Maharashtra Manu/SC 0080/1964 wherein the test of obscenity
is substantial tendency to corrupt by arousing lustful desires.
8. This aspect is further considered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors., reported in Manu/SC/0134/2025 and it is
observed that it has to be noted that in the instant case 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, 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) of the IPC. Mere
111 APL 1128 19.odt
5
utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a
further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others.
9. In view of the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex
Court if the wordings used by the present applicants are taken
into consideration which disclosed the alleged words used by the
present applicants attracting the obscene words to attract the
offence punishable under Section 294 (b) of the IPC. It is not mere
utterance of obscene words but it is having the colour of the
obscene activities on the part of the present applicants.
Considering the prima-facie case against the present applicants the
application deserves to be rejected.
10. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is rejected.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/01/2026 10:31:35
111 APL 1128 19.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1128 OF 2019
1. Ku Mohini d/o Damodar Murkute
Aged about 27 years,
Occupation : Nil
2. Rakesh s/o Damodar Murkute
Aged about: 33 years,
Occupation: Business,
Both r/o Central Railway Colony,
Besa Road, Omkar Nagar, Nagpur
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Mul
Dist, Chandrapur
NON-APPLICANT
2. Sau. Vaishali w/o Subhash
Bhandarkar,
Aged about 50 years,
Occ: Service, R/o Tadala Road,
Mul, Tq. Mul, Dist. Chandrapur
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.T. Harkare, Advocate for the applicants.
Mr. A.M. Joshi, APP for non-applicant No.1 /State.
Mr. A.P. Chaware, Advocate for the non-applicant No.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 19 .01.2026
O R A L J U D G M E N T :
1. Heard.
111 APL 1128 19.odt
2
2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal with the consent
of learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present application is preferred by the applicants
for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with
crime No.513/2017 registered with the non-applicant No.2-Police
Station under Sections 354-A, 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code and chargesheet No.102/2017 and consequent proceeding
arising out of the same bearing RCC No.80/2017 pending in the
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Mul District Chandrapur.
4. The crime is registered on the basis of report lodged
by non-applicant No.2, on an allegation that on 29.06.2017 the
present applicants have abused her in filthy language when she
was fetching the water at the water tab. During investigation the
statement of the daughter of the present complainant was
recorded and from the statement it revealed that the present
applicants not only abused but also outrage the modesty of her
daughter by using the following wordings;-
,
राकेशनेमलातुझ्याघरातघुसतोवतुलाहेपतोदोन्हीबहिणीअशाचआहेत एकमुंबईलातर
10 .
दुसरीहेहेपायलाजातेतुम्हालातुमच्याआईने हजारातविकलेआहे मुलांचेएटीएमघेऊन
?
तुम्हीशॉपिंगलाजातानागपूरयेऊनआम्हालाकायसांगते
111 APL 1128 19.odt
3
On the basis of the said investigation papers the charge-sheet is
filed against the present applicants..
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicants who
submitted that as far as the prima-facie case is concerned it is not
revealed from the investigation papers that due to the civil
dispute between the parties FIR came to be lodged against the
present applicants. He submitted that no specific role is attributed
to the present applicants. In view of that the application deserves
to be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned APP and learned counsel for the
complainant strongly opposed the said contention and submitted
that not only the filthy language is used but they have outraged
the modesty. He submitted that considering the wordings used by
the present applicants it is sufficient to show the obscene act on
the part of the present applicants. In view of that application
deserves to be rejected.
7. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the
recitals of the FIR, wherein the allegations are levelled of abuses
when the complainant had been reported back to fetch the water.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.S. Madan Gopal and
another vs. K. Lalita reported in 2022(17) SCC 18 wherein laid
111 APL 1128 19.odt
4
down the test of obscenity under Section 294 (b) of the IPC
observed that “the test of obscenity is this whether the tendency of
the matter charge as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those
minds and open to such immoral influences.” This test has been
uniformly followed in India. The Hon’ble Apex Court has accepted
the correctness of the test in Ranjit D. Udeshi Vs. State of
Maharashtra Manu/SC 0080/1964 wherein the test of obscenity
is substantial tendency to corrupt by arousing lustful desires.
8. This aspect is further considered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors., reported in Manu/SC/0134/2025 and it is
observed that it has to be noted that in the instant case 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, 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) of the IPC. Mere
111 APL 1128 19.odt
5
utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a
further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others.
9. In view of the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex
Court if the wordings used by the present applicants are taken
into consideration which disclosed the alleged words used by the
present applicants attracting the obscene words to attract the
offence punishable under Section 294 (b) of the IPC. It is not mere
utterance of obscene words but it is having the colour of the
obscene activities on the part of the present applicants.
Considering the prima-facie case against the present applicants the
application deserves to be rejected.
10. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is rejected.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/01/2026 10:31:35