SOMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the main questions came up for consideration is whether it is necessary to state and re-produce the words uttered by the accused either in the complaint or in the FIS so as to constitute an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. The sole accused came up to quash the FIR and the final report for the offence under Section 353, 294(b) IPC and 117 (e) of K.P.Act on the ground that the words uttered were not re-produced or specifically pleaded in the FIS in order to attract Section 294(b) IPC and took reliance on the decisions rendered by this Court in Sangeetha Lakshmana v. State of Kerala,2008 1 KHC 812), Latheef v. State of Kerala,2014 2 KHC 604 and Sajan C.K. v. State of Kerala and Another,2019 KHC 528. Further, it was contended that the offences under Section 353 IPC and 117(e) of K.P.Act were included without any legal basis.

(2.) The necessity to state the words uttered either in the FIS or in the complaint so as to constitute an offence under Section 294(b) IPC was elaborately considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Preethimon v. State of Kerala , 2008 2 KerLT 666 and it was held that a vague or a general statement in the FIR that the accused showered obscene words is not enough to constitute the offence and that the complainant or the first informant as the case may be shall state the words uttered by the accused by relying on Santhilal v. Parameswaran Pillai,1988 2 KerLT(SN) 74. The relevant portion is extracted below for reference:

(3.) While dealing with the requirement of re-producing the exact words used or spoken to by the accused in the complaint or in the FIS in order to constitute an offence under Section 499 IPC, the Apex Court in Balraj Khanna and Others v. Moti Ram , 1971 3 SCC 399, after a detailed deliberations on English decisions and the decisions of the various High Courts - Charles Bhadlaugh and Annie Besant v. The Queen,1878 3 QBD 607, The Capital and Counties Bank Ltd. v. George Henty and Sons,1882 7 AC 741, Collins v. Jones,1955 2 AllER 145, Harris v. Waree,1879 4 CPD 125, Sarat Chandra Das v. The State , 1952 AIR(Ori) 351, Krishnarao v. Firm Radhakisan Ramsahai , 1956 ILR(Nag) 236 : AIR 1956 Nag. 264), Emperor v. Col. Bholanath,1951 ILR(All) 313: AIR 1929 All 1), K.S. Namjundaiah v. Setti Chikka Thippanna , 1952 CrLJ 1633 : AIR 1952 Mys 123) and Dhruba Charan Khandal v. Dinabandhu Patri , 1966 AIR(Ori) 15), laid down the following :