In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench has reinstated a Magistrate Court’s order in Murtizapur, Maharashtra, which had initiated legal proceedings against a college principal for alleged offenses under Sections 294 (obscenity), 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This decision underscores the court’s stance on defining ‘public places’ in the context of obscenity laws.
Justice Anil Pansare, presiding over the case, held that the principal’s alleged remarks, made inside his chamber in the presence of three other professors, were obscene. The principal reportedly asked,
“Whether your wives had come to me for sleeping to tell you that I am of bad character.”
This statement, according to Justice Pansare, constituted an obscene act.
The court’s decision hinged on the interpretation of a ‘public place’ under Section 294 of the IPC. The Sessions Court had previously erred in its judgment that the principal’s chamber did not qualify as a public place. Contradicting this view, the High Court clarified,
“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 incident in question occurred on November 11, 2020, when college principal Santosh Madhavrao Thakre allegedly used obscene language against the petitioner, a librarian at Gadge Maharaj Mahavidyalaya in Murtizapur, in his chamber. The abusive language was reportedly directed at the petitioner in the presence of three other staff members.
Following a complaint by the librarian, Satpute, the investigating officer registered a non-cognizable offense. Satpute later approached the Magistrate under Section 200 of the CrPC, leading to the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process under the aforementioned sections of the IPC.
The Sessions Court had previously set aside the Magistrate’s order, citing the principal’s chamber as not being a public place and the absence of video evidence from the petitioner. However, Justice Pansare noted that the petitioner had submitted a pen drive containing video evidence of the incident, thereby allowing the petition.
Justice Pansare’s order further emphasized the nature of the act, stating,
“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 act committed can be said to be an obscene act committed to the annoyance of the others.”
Additionally, the High Court directed the state police chief to issue guidelines for investigating officers on seeking the Magistrate’s permission to investigate non-cognizable offenses in appropriate cases under Section 155(2) of the CrPC. This directive aims to change the current practice where the responsibility of pursuing non-cognizable offenses falls primarily on the informant.
The case, titled Nitin Shivdas Satpute vs The State of Maharashtra, represents a pivotal moment in the interpretation of obscenity laws within educational institutions, particularly in defining the boundaries of public and private spaces.