'Nalayak' And Similar Colloquial Words Used During Political Protest Cannot Attract Obscenity Or Intentional Insult Charges Under IPC; MP High Court Quashes FIR Against Former Minister
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi, quashed an FIR and chargesheet filed against a former Cabinet Minister for allegedly using inappropriate language against the District Collector and local administration during a political protest over rising inflation. The Court held that the remarks, including the colloquial expression "nalayak," do not carry the lascivious or obscene character required to attract liability under the provisions governing obscenity, and that mere harsh words directed at an administrative authority during a protest, absent any intent to provoke a breach of public peace, similarly fall short of constituting intentional insult under the penal code.
The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment of a charge sheet arising from Crime registered at Police Station Waidhan, District Singrauli, for offences under Sections 294 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The criminal proceedings were pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Singrauli.
According to the prosecution, a protest rally was organized on 23 July 2021 by members of a political party regarding rising inflation. During the event, when a memorandum was being submitted near the Collectorate at Waidhan, the petitioner, described as a former Cabinet Minister, allegedly used inappropriate and unparliamentary language against the Collector and the district administration. On the directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, an FIR was registered on 25 July 2021 under Section 294 IPC, and after investigation a charge sheet dated 19 August 2021 was filed with the addition of Section 504 IPC.
The petitioner contended that the allegations were vague and lacked the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. It was argued that the FIR did not specify the exact abusive words or show that any obscene act or utterance caused public annoyance. The petitioner further submitted that the remarks were made during a political protest concerning administrative functioning and at best constituted criticism. It was also argued that the complainant was a Patwari who lodged the complaint on administrative directions, and that no independent public witness was cited. The State and the complainant opposed the petition, contending that objectionable language used during a public gathering disturbed public order and attracted Sections 294 and 504 IPC.
The Court examined the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner and recorded the legal position governing Section 294 IPC. It stated that “Section 294 IPC contemplates punishment for obscene acts or utterances in a public place causing annoyance to others. For attracting the said provision, the prosecution must specifically allege and establish that the accused uttered obscene words in a public place which caused annoyance to the public at large.”
Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in N.S. Madhanagopal v. K. Lalitha, the Court recorded the observation that “Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. To prove the offence under Section 294 of IPC mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others.”
The Court observed that "It is a matter of common experience that expressions such as “nalayak” and similar colloquial words are widely used in everyday speech across the country and, depending upon the context, may not necessarily carry the intention to humiliate or abuse a particular individual. Criminal liability cannot be fastened merely on the basis of such expressions unless the statutory ingredients of the offence are clearly established".
While analysing Section 504 IPC, the Court referred to the requirements of intentional insult and provocation likely to cause breach of peace. It recorded that “the intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.”
Applying these principles to the facts, the Court observed that “the alleged remarks were made during a political protest concerning public issues and were directed generally towards the functioning of the administration.” It further recorded that “the Collector, against whom the alleged remarks were made, was not present at the spot” and that the complainant was a Patwari.
The Court also observed that “mere criticism or use of harsh words against an administrative authority during a political protest, without any material to show deliberate provocation intended to incite breach of peace, would not constitute the offence under Section 504 IPC.”
On examining the investigation material, the Court recorded that “despite the alleged incident having occurred in a public place during a political gathering, no independent witness from the public has been cited in support of the prosecution case.”
Finally, the Court stated that “where the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute the ingredients of the alleged offences, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law.”
The Court directed: “the allegations made against the petitioner do not prima facie disclose the commission of offences under Sections 294 and 504 IPC. Continuation of the criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.”
“The present petition is allowed.” It ordered that “the FIR registered vide Crime No. 896/2021 at Police Station Waidhan, District Singrauli (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 294 and 504 IPC and the consequential charge sheet dated 19.08.2021 as well as the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Singrauli in RCT No. 2345/2024 (State of M.P. Vs. Bansh Mani Verma) are hereby quashed.”
“This order shall not preclude the competent authority from taking recourse to any remedy available under law, if so advised.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Praveen Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. Priyanka Mishra, Government Advocate for the State; Shri Agnivesh Dubey, Advocate.
Case Title: Bansh Mani Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: MPHC-JBP:18401
Case Number: Misc. Criminal Case No. 55648 of 2024
Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi
