Introduction:

The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench recently reinstated an order passed by a Magistrate Court in Murtizapur, Maharashtra, issuing process against a college principal for alleged offences under Sections 294 (obscenity), 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. Justice Anil Pansare held that the words uttered by the principal inside his chamber constituted an obscene act and clarified the public place aspect.

Parties’ Arguments:

The case involved the college principal allegedly abusing a librarian in his chamber, and the Sessions Court had earlier found the principal not guilty. The petitioner argued that the principal’s chamber, being in the college premises, qualifies as a public place under Section 294 of the IPC. The petitioner also submitted a pen drive with video evidence of the incident.

The Sessions Court had set aside the Magistrate’s order, contending that the principal’s chamber was not a public place, and no video evidence was presented. The petitioner raised concerns about the investigating officer’s failure to approach the Magistrate for a non-cognizable complaint.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice Pansare ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that the college premises, including the principal’s chamber, constitutes a public place accessible to all. The court disagreed with the Sessions Court’s interpretation and considered the principal’s chamber as a public place under Section 294 of the IPC. It also criticized the investigating officer for not following proper procedures for investigating non-cognizable offences.

The High Court directed the state police chief to issue guidelines for investigating officers, urging them to seek the Magistrate’s permission to investigate non-cognizable offences under Section 155(2) of the CrPC. The court highlighted the need to change the practice of leaving it to the informant to pursue non-cognizable offences.