Supreme Court of India· 15 May 2024
Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, does an allegation that the accused abused the complainant by using profane language attract the offence under Section 294(b)?
C. Subbiah @ Kadambur Jayaraj and Others v. The Superintendent of Police and Others
2024 INSC 416
Coram: B.R. Gavai; Sandeep Mehta
Answer
No. Section 294(b) punishes whoever, to the annoyance of others, sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words in or near any public place. An allegation of abuse by profane language would clearly not fall within that provision.
Headnote
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 — s.2(a) — s.4 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.420 — s.406 — s.294(b) — s.506(ii) — Benami transaction — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Abuse of process of law —
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 — s.4 — Property held benami — civil remedy barred, criminal prosecution impermissible —
Held: Section 4 of the Benami Act bars the real owner from suing to enforce any right in property held benami. As a corollary, criminal prosecution on the self-same cause of action is impermissible in law. (¶35, 36)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.420 — s.406 — Cheating — fraudulent intention at inception of the transaction —
Held further: Cheating is not made out unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Where plots and part profits were passed on and only quantification of the share is disputed, the dispute is purely civil. (¶38, 42)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.294(b) — s.506(ii) — Obscene acts — profane language and bald allegation insufficient —
Held further: Section 294(b) applies only to an obscene song, ballad or words uttered in or near a public place, not to an allegation of abuse by profane language. A bald allegation of intimidation, unsupported by material, will not sustain Section 506(ii). (¶43, 44)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.420 — Civil dispute given colour of criminal prosecution — abuse of process —
Held further: A purely civil dispute given the colour of criminal prosecution by misusing the tool of criminal law tantamounts to sheer abuse of the process of law. Impugned order and the proceedings pursuant to the charge sheet quashed; appeal allowed. (¶42, 46)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 43The Investigating Officer has also applied offences under Section 294(b) and Section 506(ii) read with Section 114 IPC in the charge sheet. On going through the entire charge sheet, we do not find any such material therein which can justify invocation of the offence under Section 294(b) IPC which reads as below: - “294. Obscene acts and songs.—Whoever, to the annoyance of others, (a) …. (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.”
Paragraph 44The complainant alleged that the accused abused him by using profane language. Section 294(b) IPC would clearly not apply to such an act. Apart from a bald allegation made by the complainant that A-1 abused him and intimidated him on 28th July, 2010, there is no material which can show that the accused indulged in criminal intimidation of the complainant so as to justify invocation of the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) IPC.
Acts & Sections
s.4 Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988s.2(a) Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988s.420 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.406 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.294(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860s.506(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860s.120B Indian Penal Code, 1860s.156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of C. Subbiah @ Kadambur Jayaraj and Others v. The Superintendent of Police and Others — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →
Also decided in this judgment
Under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, where the real owner's civil suit to recover property held benami is barred by Section 4, can he still prosecute the person in whose name the property is held on the self-same cause of action?Under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, what makes a land deal registered in another person's name, using consideration provided by the complainant, a benami transaction?Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, can a prosecution for cheating under Section 420 be sustained where some plots and part profits were passed on and the dispute is only over quantification of the share due?Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is a bald allegation of criminal intimidation, unsupported by any material in the charge sheet, enough to sustain a charge under Section 506(ii)?What is the settled caution against converting a purely civil dispute into a criminal case, and how was it applied to a real estate profit-sharing dispute?