Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 939 (ORI)

Suchitra Tripathy v. State of Orissa

2017-08-28

S.K.SAHOO

body2017
JUDGMENT : Heard 2. The petitioners have filed this application under section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned order dated 03.09.2004 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar in I.C.C. Case No.102 of 2004 in taking cognizance of the offence under sections 294/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Since both the CRLMC applications arise out of a one case i.e. I.C.C. Case No.102 of 2004 and the impugned order in both the cases is also the same, with the consent of the parties, both the cases were heard analogously and disposed of by this common order. 4. On perusal of the complaint petition which has been annexed to the applications, it appears that the petitioners and the opposite party no.2 are related to each other inasmuch as the sister of opposite party no.2 had married petitioner Aswini Kumar Tripathy and there was matrimonial dispute between the parties 5. In order to attract the ingredients of the offence under section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, it is the requirement of law that the accused must have done some obscene act in any public place or sung, recited or uttered any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place and it must cause annoyance to the others. 6. According to the complaint petition, the occurrence in question took place inside the house of the opposite party no.2 Gyanaranjan Pati. Public place means such place where public must have free access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not. The place where the public have no lawful right to enter cannot be said to be a public place. The house of a private person like opposite party no.2 cannot be said to be a public place. There is also no material that it is located nearer to the public place. There is also no specific assertion that any such act as enumerated under section 294 of the Indian Penal Code caused annoyance to others. Therefore, I am of the view that the order of taking cognizance under sections 294/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. Accordingly, both the CRLMC applications are allowed and the impugned order is set aside.