Bombay High Court Quashes Charges Under Section 294 IPC Against Amit Ashok Jagdale

Court Finds No Evidence of Annoyance Caused by Alleged Obscenities in Government Office Incident

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench has quashed charges under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Amit Ashok Jagdale, who was accused of using abusive language during an altercation at a Government Polytechnic College in Sakoli. The court determined that the ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 294 IPC were not met, as there was no evidence that the language used by Jagdale caused annoyance to others.

The incident, which occurred on July 2, 2020, involved Jagdale allegedly damaging property at the college, including breaking office glass and damaging CCTV equipment. He was accused of using offensive language and threatening staff regarding the release of his General Provident Fund. Despite these allegations, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the language used by Jagdale was obscene or that it resulted in annoyance to others, which are essential elements under Section 294 IPC.

The court's decision overturns previous orders from the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sakoli, and the Sessions Judge, Bhandara, which had both upheld the charge under Section 294 IPC. The High Court's ruling underscores the importance of demonstrating actual annoyance or obscenity to sustain charges under this section.

Jagdale's legal counsel argued that the charge-sheet lacked evidence of annoyance caused by the alleged obscene language, citing previous Supreme Court judgments that emphasized the need for such evidence. The High Court agreed, noting that while Jagdale's actions and language might have been inappropriate, they did not meet the legal threshold required under Section 294 IPC.

The court's decision provides clarity on the application of Section 294 IPC, reinforcing the necessity of proving both obscenity and annoyance for charges to be sustained. While Jagdale faces other charges under different sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, this ruling marks a significant legal victory for him in the ongoing case.

Bottom Line:

Mere use of abusive, filthy, or unparliamentary language is not sufficient to attract the offence under Section 294 IPC unless there is evidence to show that such language caused annoyance to others.

Statutory provision(s): Section 294 IPC, Section 239 CrPC, Section 427, 504, 506, 352 IPC, Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984

Amit Ashok Jagdale v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(Nagpur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2782372