‘Nalayak’ Remark During Protest Not Obscenity: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes FIR Against Former Minister

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against former Cabinet Minister Bansh Mani Verma in a case alleging that he used objectionable language against district authorities during a political protest, holding that mere criticism or use of harsh words against the administration during a public demonstration does not by itself attract criminal liability under Sections 294 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

The order was passed by Justice Himanshu Joshi in a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482, CrPC) seeking quashing of the FIR, chargesheet and criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No. 896/2021 registered at Police Station Waidhan in Singrauli district.

The case stemmed from a protest rally organised on July 23, 2021 by members of the Indian National Congress against rising inflation. According to the prosecution, when a memorandum was being submitted to the district administration near the Collectorate at Waidhan, the petitioner allegedly used inappropriate and unparliamentary language against the Collector and the administration, following which an FIR was registered two days later on the directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

Shri Praveen Dubey, Counsel for the petitioner argued that the prosecution was based on vague and omnibus allegations and failed to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. It was contended that the FIR did not specify the exact abusive words used by the petitioner and did not demonstrate that any obscene act or utterance had taken place that caused annoyance to the public. The petitioner further argued that the remarks, even if taken at face value, were directed at the functioning of the district administration during a political protest and could at best amount to criticism of administrative conduct rather than obscenity or intentional insult punishable under criminal law. It was also highlighted that the complainant was a Patwari who lodged the FIR on the directions of the Sub-Divisional Officer, even though the alleged remarks were said to have been directed against the Collector.

Opposing the petition, Smt. Priyanka Mishra, Government Advocate for the State and Shri Agnivesh Dubey, Advocate for the complainant submitted that the language used by the petitioner during the protest was objectionable and had the potential to disturb public order. They argued that the incident occurred in a public place before a large gathering and the statements recorded during investigation indicated that insulting language had been used against the Collector and district administration. According to the State, such conduct could amount to obscene utterances under Section 294 IPC and intentional insult likely to provoke breach of peace under Section 504 IPC, and therefore the criminal trial should be allowed to proceed.

After examining the case diary and the material on record, the High court observed that the legal requirements of Section 294 IPC were not satisfied. Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the court noted that for the offence of obscenity to be made out, the prosecution must establish that obscene words were uttered in a public place and that such utterances caused annoyance to others. The court observed that the expressions allegedly used by the petitioner, including colloquial terms such as “nalayak,” may be considered derogatory in some contexts but cannot automatically be categorised as obscene. It emphasised that “criminal liability cannot be fastened merely on the basis of such expressions unless the statutory ingredients of the offence are clearly established.”

The court also found that the requirements of Section 504 IPC were absent. It noted that the alleged remarks were made during a political protest relating to public issues and were directed broadly at the functioning of the administration. Importantly, the Collector against whom the remarks were allegedly made was not present at the spot, and there was no material to indicate that the petitioner intended to provoke any person to breach the peace. The court observed that “mere criticism or use of harsh words against an administrative authority during a political protest, without any material to show deliberate provocation intended to incite breach of peace, would not constitute the offence under Section 504 IPC.”

The court further noted that although the incident allegedly took place in a public place during a political gathering, the prosecution had not cited any independent public witnesses. The statements relied upon in the chargesheet were primarily of subordinate officers of the administration, which weakened the prosecution case.

Holding that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not disclose the commission of the offences alleged, the High court concluded that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the court.

Accordingly, the FIR, the chargesheet dated August 19, 2021, and the pending criminal proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Singrauli were quashed. However, the court clarified that the order would not preclude the competent authority from taking recourse to any remedy available under law, if so advised.

Case Title: Bansh Mani Verma v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: March 5, 2026

Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi