IPC 294-abuse by principal in chamber

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 660 OF 2022
Nitin Shivdas Satpute
Age 41 Years, Occupation  Service;
R/o Motinagar, Amravati, Tahsil and
District Amravati.
 
  PETITIONER
V E R S U S
1. The State of Maharashtra
through the Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Murtizapur, Tahsil
Murtizapur, District Akola.
 
2. Santosh Madhavrao Thakre
Age 58 Years, Occupation  Service;
Office of the Principal, Shri Gadge
Maharaj Mahavidyalaya, Murtizapur,
Tahsil Murtizapur, District Akola.  RESPONDENTS
Mr. S. M. Vaishnav, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. A. R. Chutke, APP for Respondent No.1/State.
None for the Respondent No.2.
 CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE, J.
 DATE : DECEMBER 22, 2023.12. As regards setting aside the order of issuance of process under
Section 294 of Indian Penal Code, it would be better to go through this
provision, which reads thus:
294. Obscene acts and songs.  Whoever, to the annoyance of others  
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near
any public place,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.
Bare reading of this provision indicates that whosoever, to the annoyance of
others, does obscene act in any public place will be said to have committed an
offence under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code.
13. In the present case, abusive words uttered by the Respondent
No.2 are, Whether your wives had come to me for sleeping to tell you that I
am of bad character, This act can be said to be an obscene act. The
averments in the complaint allege that along with the Petitioner three more
persons were present in the Chamber, and therefore, when the aforesaid
abusive language used by the Respondent No.2 in presence of the other

persons, the act committed can be said to be an obscene act committed to the
annoyance of the others.
14. As regards public place, the act has been committed in the
Respondent No.2s Chamber, which is situated in the College premises. The
College premises is admittedly a public place, as the students, teachers, staff
and other such persons connected with the College have access to the
building, in which the Chamber of the Principal is located. In that sense, the
Chamber of the Principal could be said to be a public place. The Sessions
Court, however, took an erroneous view that the Principals Chamber is not a
public place.
15. The contentions of the Petitioner, therefore, that the Sessions
Court has committed patent illegality is correct. The Sessions Court failed to
exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law. Therefore, the order impugned
requires correction.