1. The petitioner who is an advocate by profession is the accused in C.C No. 293 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Ss. 332 and 294(b) I.P.C The case originated out of Crime No. 974 of 2006 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam.
2. The allegation in the charge is that on 12/07/2006 at about 1.45 p.m on getting information to the effect that the petitioner/accused is trespassing into Flat No. A-102 at Sui Summit, E.R.G Road; Pappali Lane, Ernakulam possessed by South Indian Bank pursuant to the legal proceedings initiated by the bank for the non-remittance of the loan availed of by Darwin Exporters Pvt. Ltd., the Sub Inspector of Police, who is the first informant reached the flat and when he tried to obstruct the accused from trespassing into the apartment, the accused insulted the Sub Inspector asking him as to which Sub Inspector he was and called him “rascal” and thereby the petitioner obstructed him from discharging his official duties and also caused annoyance to him by calling “rascal” which is an obscene word.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Director General of Prosecution.
4. Apart from the fact that the word “rascal” may at best amount to “scoundrel, rogue or scamp” very often used jokingly or paradoxically, the said word is not known to have any tinge of obscenity.
5. In order to satisfy the test of obscenity, the words uttered must be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the minds of its hearers. The word “rascal” does not have the tendency of depraving or corrupting those minds which are open to the prurient of lascivious influences. Secondly, the occurrence itself allegedly took place when the Sub Inspector went to the flat in question in purported exercise of rendering aid to the bank for taking possession of the flat.
6. As a matter of fact, as per Annexure B proceedings of the Debts Recovery Tribunal dated 12.7.2006 all proceedings pursuant to the possession notice dated 7.7.2006 issued by the bank were stayed till 17.8.2006 There is no dispute that the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal was passed in the morning of 12.7.2006 If so, neither the bank nor the police officer could have proceeded to the flat in question for taking possession of the same. Hence, the Inspector had no business at all at the premises in question, much less, do any act in discharge of his duties. If so, it cannot be said that the Sub Inspector (a public servant) was deterred by the petitioner from discharging his official duties. Such being the position, allowing the above C.C Case to proceed further will amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, all proceedings in C.C 293 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam is quashed.
7. This Crl. M.C is allowed as above.