Allowed¶31

Tejas Haresh Hakani v. State of Maharashtra

Quashing – Section 482 CrPC

Bombay HC27 Jan 2025APL/1872/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.482 CrPC quashing — bar/restaurant obscene dance raid, Andheri — applicant merely a 'customer', no specific role or overt act attributed — IPC Ss.308, 294, 114 r/w 34 and Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance Act Ss.3, 8(1)(2)(4) — mere spectator not prosecutable — reliance on Manish Parshottam Raghuwani, Rushabh Minishkumar Mehta, Nirav Raval, Mitesh Ramesh Punmiya — Bombay HC, CRL. APPL (A.P.L.) 1872/2024, Gadkari & Patil JJ., 19-06-2025 — application allowed, case against applicant quashed.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); Rule made absolute — quashing of C.C.No.PW/6500304/2023 pending before JMFC (65th Court), Andheri, Mumbai, against the Applicant. ¶31

Tejas Haresh Hakani vs State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); Rule made absolute — quashing of C.C.No.PW/6500304/2023 pending before JMFC (65th Court), Andheri, Mumbai, against the Applicant.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal case C.C.No.PW/6500304/2023 pending before the JMFC (65th Court), Andheri, against the Applicant, who was allegedly only a 'customer' present during the raid, deserves to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC for want of any specific role or overt act attributed to him.

¶12

Court's answer

The FIR itself terms the Applicant a 'customer'; no specific role is attributed to him of encouraging the women dancers to dance obscenely or of showering Indian currency notes on them.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

To attract the ingredients of the offences applied in the crime, it is necessary that the accused person himself indulges in doing an obscene act in a public place or singing, reciting or uttering an obscene song in or near a public place.

¶22

Key takeaways

The allegation against the Applicant is generic; he was not actually found showering/throwing Indian currency notes on the women dancers and there is no material even to suggest he was an abettor present when the alleged offence was committed.ratio¶22
The Applicant's case is covered by this Court's decisions in Manish Parshottam Raghuwani, Mr. Rushabh Minishkumar Mehta and Nirav Raval (as followed in Mitesh Ramesh Punmiya), i.e. mere presence in the bar without a specific overt act does not attract prosecution.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing — Section 482 CrPC — Bombay High Court allowed a Criminal Application and made the Rule absolute, quashing C.C.No.PW/6500304/2023 (arising out of Andheri P.S. C.R. No. 372 of 2022, registered under Sections 308, 294, 114 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3, 8(1)(2)(4) of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance Act, 2016) against an applicant found during a raid on a restaurant and bar merely as a 'customer'. The Court held that the FIR attributes no specific role to him — neither encouraging the women dancers to dance obscenely nor showering currency notes; that the ingredients of the invoked offences require the accused himself to indulge in an obscene act or utter an obscene song in or near a public place; and that a mere spectator, without any external manifestation of 'encouraging' and without material showing abetment, is not prosecutable. The Court applied its own co-ordinate Bench decisions in Manish Parshottam Raghuwani (Crl. W.P.(Stamp) 4343/2024), Rushabh Minishkumar Mehta (Crl. W.P.(Stamp) 4799/2020) and Nirav Raval (Crl. W.P. 1708/2024), noting they were followed in Mitesh Ramesh Punmiya (Crl. W.P. 2376/2023). Coram: A.S. Gadkari and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ.; judgment per A.S. Gadkari, J.; decided 19 June 2025.

¶1

dtg 43-Apl-1872-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (A.P.L.) NO. 1872 OF 2024

¶5

Tejas Haresh Hakani	]
Age:- 45 years, Occ.:- Business,	]
Residing at 604, Kasturi Apartment,	]
Bapubhai Vashi Road,	]
Vile Parle West, Mumbai 400 056.	]	… Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra	]
(At the instance of Andheri Police Station,	]
Mumbai in C.R. No. 372 of 2022)	]	… Respondent

¶6

Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w Mr. Rahul Tripathi, Mr. Ashish Dubey and Mr. Ajay Dubey for Applicant.

¶7

Mr. Kiran C. Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.

¶8

Mr. Jagdish More, P.S.I., Andheri police station, present.

¶9

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 19^th June 2025.

¶10

JUDGMENT : (PER : A.S. GADKARI, J.) :-

¶11

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned Advocates for respective parties, heard finally.

¶12

Present Application is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, (Cr.P.C.) for quashing of C.C.No.PW/6500304/2023, pending

¶13

on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, (65^th Court), Andheri, Mumbai,

¶14

1/4

¶15

dtg 43-Apl-1872-2024.doc

¶16

arising out of C.R. No. 372 of 2022, dated 23^rd April 2022 registered with Andheri Police Station, Mumbai, under Sections 308, 294, 114 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (I.P.C.) and Sections 3, 8 (1) (2) (4) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Of Obscene Dance In Hotels, Restaurants And Bar Rooms And Protection Of Dignity Of Women (Working Therein) Act, 2016.

¶17

Heard Mr. Naphade, learned counsel for Applicant and Mr. Shinde, learned APP for Respondent-State. Perused entire record produced before us.

¶18

It is the case of prosecution that, upon receipt of confidential information that, certain obscene acts were being performed and some women were forced to dance obscenely in Sameet Punjab Restaurant and Bar (Sameet Palace), situated at Bengali Chawl, Koldongari, Andheri (East), Mumbai, the Police conducted raid on it on 22^nd April 2022, after 10.00 p.m. The pancha witnesses noticed that, certain women dancers were dancing obscenely and the customers present there were showering Indian currency notes on them, to encourage such performances. During the search, the Applicant was found, at the said place as a customer. After conducting the said raid, First Information Report was lodged with Andheri police station, Mumbai.

¶19

Perusal of First Information Report itself clearly indicates that, the Investigating Agency has also termed the Applicant as a ‘customer’, present in the said restaurant. No specific role is attributed to him, either of encouraging to the women dancers to dance obscenely or showering of Indian currency notes on them. It is stated in the FIR that, Applicant was one of the person present as a

¶20

2/4

¶21

dtg 43-Apl-1872-2024.doc

¶22

‘customer’ and the Panchnama dated 22^nd April 2022 also mentions about the same fact. A perusal of the provisions applied to the present crime indicates that, in order to attract the ingredients of the aforesaid offences, it is necessary that, the accused person indulges in doing any obscene act in a public place or singing, reciting, uttering any obscene song in or near a public place. There is no material on record to indicate that, the Applicant is either indulging into any obscene act or uttering any obscene song. The statement against the Applicant is generic in nature i.e. a customer found at the said Bar and Restaurant and was enjoying the show and encouraging the women artists. It is not the case of the prosecution that, the Applicant was found to have doing any explicit act that can demonstrate an external manifestation of the term ‘encouraging’. He was not actually found to be showering/throwing Indian currency notes on the women dancers. There is no material at all even to suggest that, the Applicant was an abettor present when the alleged offence was committed.

¶23

In the case of Manish Parshottam Raghuwani and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 4343 of 2024, decided on 5^th April 2024, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that, persons cannot be prosecuted for merely being present in the Bar and Restaurant at the relevant time, when no specific overt act is attributed to them.

¶24

6.1) In the case of Mr. Rushabh Minishkumar Mehta and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 4799 of 2020, decided on 14^th January 2021, it is held that, merely being present in a situation

¶25

3/4

¶26

dtg 43-Apl-1872-2024.doc

¶27

where obscene acts are done by another person, where he is merely a spectator does not attract the provisions of Sections 294 and 114 of the I.P.C.

¶28

6.2) In the case of Nirav Raval and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1708 of 2024, decided on 12^th July 2024, similar view is taken by this Court.

¶29

According to us, the case of the Applicant is covered by the decisions of this Court in the cases of (i) Manish Parshottam Raghuwani (supra) (ii) Mr. Rushabh Minishkumar Mehta (supra) and (iii) Nirav Raval and Others (supra), followed in case of Mitesh Ramesh Punmiya Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2376 of 2023, decided on 10^th September 2024.

¶30

Accordingly, the case No.PW/6500304/2023, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, (65^th Court), Andheri, Mumbai against the Applicant, deserves to be quashed.

¶31

1. Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶32

9.1) Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

¶33

4/4

Tejas Haresh Hakani v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejas Haresh Hakani v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra Babulal Malu and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aniket Pravin Nitnaware vs State of Maharashtra

Shrimanta Shktipad Nayak vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Poonamsingh Chainsingh Darnal@ Poonam R Darnal and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra Anr.

Sunil Laxman Ghode vs State of Maharashtra

Vitthal Uttam Bobade and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.