Allahabad High Court: In an application under Section (‘CrPC’) to quash the summoning order issued by the Civil Judge, Senior Division (F.T.C.), Unnao (‘the Civil Judge’), on the ground that his arrest and subsequent legal proceedings were marred by procedural and substantive irregularities, leading to a false implication, Shamim Ahmed, J., held that mere performance of obscene or indecent act is not sufficient and there must be proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, thereby annoyance to others is essential to constitute an offence under Section of the (‘IPC’).
Background
The applicant was arrested by police personnel at a busy bridge in the jurisdiction of Police Station Achalganj, District Unnao. According to the police, the arrest was prompted by allegations that applicant had made obscene remarks towards women present at the location. The incident purportedly took place in a public area with a significant presence of general members of public, yet there were no independent witnesses of the aforesaid arrest-cum-recovery memo.
Following the arrest, the police swiftly registered FIR under Section of the , which pertains to the punishment for obscene acts and songs in public places. The applicant submitted that the investigation was expedited, with the police preparing a site plan, recording statements from police witnesses, and filing a charge sheet within a notably short period. Thus, the applicant raised questions on the lack of involvement of independent witnesses and the absence of any recorded statements from the women allegedly targeted by the obscene remarks as hese women were neither named in the FIR nor interviewed during the investigation.
Based on the police charge sheet, the Civil Judge issued a summoning order against the applicant, requiring him to appear before the Court. This led to the current proceedings before the Court.
Applicant argued that the police violated mandatory provisions of Sections and of the during the arrest and investigation. The defence highlighted that the police acted in undue haste, fabricating the case to demonstrate their efficiency within their jurisdiction, thus falsely implicating the applicant. The applicant further submitted that the sequence of events from arrest to FIR filing and charge sheet preparation was extraordinarily rapid, casting serious doubts on the genuineness of the investigation.
The applicant submitted that the investigation relied solely on the statements of police personnel, which were strikingly identical. The applicant, an undergraduate student with no prior criminal record, was said to have been returning from his aunt’s house when he was wrongfully implicated.
Decision and Analysis
The Court scrutinized the procedural lapses evident in the police investigation and noted that the preparation of the site plan and the charge sheet was executed hastily, within a week of the FIR filing and further that the police failed to examine the independent witnesses, or the women allegedly subjected to obscene remarks. The Court observed that the lack of adherence to mandatory criminal law provisions rendered the investigation flawed and unreliable. The Court stated that the police’s failure to investigate thoroughly, particularly their neglect in examining independent witnesses, significantly diminished the credibility of their case.
The Court also considered the broader implications of the case on the applicant’s future and noted that as an undergraduate student, his academic and career prospects were jeopardized by these false allegations. The Court referred to Supreme Court’s guidelines on the exercise of power under Section of and emphasized on preventing the abuse of the legal process and ensuring justice. The Court noted that the investigation appeared to have been conducted in a tainted manner, primarily aimed at projecting the police’s efficiency rather than uncovering the truth.
Moreover, the Court referred to the principle that mere utterance of obscene words, without evidence of annoyance caused to others, does not constitute an offense under Section of . The Court opined that there must be evidence of annoyance caused by the alleged obscene words to constitute an offense under Section of . In this case, such evidence is conspicuously absent. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the investigation was conducted hastily and improperly, relying solely on police testimonies without independent corroboration, leading to a flawed judicial process, evidenced by the issuance of the charge sheet and summoning order without proper judicial application of mind. Consequently, the Court quashed the summoning order, the charge sheet, and all subsequent proceedings against applicant, highlighting the need for a fair and unbiased investigation in criminal matters.
[Monu Kumar v. State of U.P., Application u/s 482 No. – 4223 of 2024, Order dated 30-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocates for Applicant: Sudhanshu S. Tripathi, Ritwika Tripathi, Advocates
Advocate for State: G.A.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .