Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Abdul Karim Samruddin, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of Summary Criminal Case No.3271/2012 pending before the 5th J.M.F.C. Court, Akola, for the offence punishable under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case arose from FIR No.3076/2012 dated 8th August 2012 and Final Report No.96/2012 dated 21st December 2012, filed by Police Station Ramdaspeth, Akola. The complainant, Ayub Khan Shaikh Rehman (respondent no.2), alleged that on 7th August 2012, while he and his friends were sitting on a bullock-cart, they heard that the applicant had made derogatory statements against Prophet Mohammad on a loudspeaker, which could insult the religious feelings of Muslims and lead to disputes. The applicant contended that the complaint did not make out any offence under Section 294(b) IPC as it was based on hearsay and lacked specific allegations of obscene acts or songs. The State opposed the application, arguing that the contents of the complaint prima facie disclosed an offence. The court analyzed the ingredients of Section 294(b) IPC, which requires that the accused commits an obscene act or sings an obscene song in a public place to the annoyance of others. The court found that the complaint did not allege any obscene act or song, but only that the applicant made derogatory statements, which does not fall within the ambit of the section. Additionally, the complaint was based on hearsay, as the complainant did not claim to have personally heard the statements. The court held that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the process of law and accordingly quashed the criminal proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Obscene Acts and Songs - Section 294(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ingredients of Offence - The court examined whether allegations of making derogatory statements against Prophet Mohammad on a loudspeaker constitute an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. Held that the section requires obscene acts or songs in a public place causing annoyance to others, and the complaint based on hearsay without specifying any obscene act or song does not make out the offence. (Paras 2-6) B) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Quashing of FIR - The court considered the scope of its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings where the allegations do not disclose any offence. Held that where the complaint does not prima facie constitute an offence, continuation of proceedings is an abuse of process and liable to be quashed. (Paras 2, 6) C) Evidence - Hearsay Evidence - Complaint Based on Hearsay - The court noted that the complainant did not claim to have heard the alleged statements himself but only heard about them from others. Held that a complaint based on hearsay cannot sustain a prosecution under Section 294(b) IPC. (Paras 3, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the allegations in the complaint and FIR make out a prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and whether the continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and quashed the Summary Criminal Case No.3271/2012 pending before the 5th J.M.F.C. Court, Akola, along with the FIR No.3076/2012 and Final Report No.96/2012.
Law Points
- Section 294(b) IPC requires obscene acts or songs in public place to the annoyance of others
- complaint based on hearsay does not constitute offence
- inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process
