Bombay High Court

ANAND ARUNKUMAR BHATTversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided: 4 March 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: ASHWIN D BHOBE

Holding

Mere presence as a customer without any overt act or abetment does not attract the penal provisions, and the FIR and charge‑sheet are quashed.

Summary

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 129 of 2018 and the related charge‑sheet alleging offences under Sections 294, 114 and 34 IPC and the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance Act, on the ground that he was only a "customer" present at a bar where obscene dance was alleged. The court examined the FIR and found no allegation of any overt obscene act by the petitioner, nor any act of abetment or conspiracy. Relying on a series of prior decisions (Raj Jiten Chheda, Rushabh Mehta, Akash Katla, Nirav Raval, Manish Rughwani, Jitendra Kamat) the court held that mere presence as a customer does not satisfy the elements of the said offences. Applying the Bhajan Lal test for abuse of process, the court concluded that proceeding against the petitioner would be an abuse of the criminal process. Consequently, the FIR and charge‑sheet were quashed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were closed.

Issues considered

Whether mere presence as a customer at a venue where obscene dance is alleged attracts liability under Section 294 IPC.
Whether the petitioner can be held liable as an abettor under Section 114 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
Whether the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working Therein) Act, 2016 apply to a person who was only a customer.
Whether the FIR and charge‑sheet should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS to prevent abuse of the legal process.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 114, 294, 34
Maharashtra Police Act — s. 33(W)

Subjects

Obscene dance
Section 294 IPC
Abetment
FIR quash
Abuse of process
Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance Act
Criminal Procedure Code
Section 482
Section 528 BNSS

Judgment

Gitalaxmi 30-WP-1208-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1208 OF 2024

Anand Arunkumar Bhatt ...Petitioner

Versus.

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
-------

Mr. Sunny Aaron Waskar a/w Ms. Harshada Morey & Ms. Bhavika Patil,
learned Advocates for the Petitioner.

Mr. Prasanna P. Malshe, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent.
PSI Mr. D. P. Mane attached to Kasturba Marg Police Station is present in
the Court.
-------

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 4th MARCH 2026.

P.C. :

1. By this Petition, preferred by the Petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), for quashing the First Information Report
bearing No. 129 of 2018 dated 11.03.2018 registered with
Kasturba Marg Police Station, Mumbai (“Impugned FIR”), for
offences punishable under Sections 294, 114, and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, Sections 33(W) of the Maharashtra Police Act,
and Sections 3 & 8(1)(2)(3)(4)(6) of the Maharashtra Prohibition
of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and
Protection of Dignity of Women (Working Therein) Act, 2016 and
the charge-sheet, which is registered as Case No. 1180/PW/2020,
Page 1 of 6
Gitalaxmi 30-WP-1208-2024.doc

pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 68 th
Court at Borivali, Mumbai, arising out of the impugned FIR.

2. The allegations in the impugned FIR and the material
collected state that on 10.03.2018, the Police Inspector of Kasturba
Marg Police Station, Mumbai, received secret information about
objectionable activities at an establishment. Based on this
information, the Police conducted a raid at Charwalk Bar and
Restaurant, Ground Floor, Ghanshyam Tower, M. G. Road, Borivali
(East), Mumbai. Approximately 45 people, including the bar
manager, orchestra artists, bar girls, and customers of the said bar,
were apprehended. The Petitioner is alleged to have been one of
the “customers” present at the Charwalk Bar and Restaurant where
the victims reportedly performed obscene dance.

3. Mr Sunny Waskar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner,
submits that apart from referring to the Petitioner as a “customer”,
there is no other material or assertion of whatsoever nature in the
impugned FIR to make out the case as against the Petitioner for the
offences, which are charged. He submits that there is no material to
indicate that the Petitioner having behaved in any indecent manner
or otherwise abetted the alleged crime. He therefore argues that
prosecuting the Petitioner would amount to an abuse of legal
process.

4. Mr Prasanna Malshe, learned A.P.P. for the State/Respondent,
submits that the only allegation against the Petitioner is that he
was present at the Charwalk Bar and Restaurant as a “customer”.

5. Heard arguments advanced by Mr. Sunny Waskar, learned
Page 2 of 6
Gitalaxmi 30-WP-1208-2024.doc

Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Prasanna Malshe, learned A.P.P.
for the State/Respondent. Perused records with the assistance of
the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

6. There are no allegations against the Petitioner of engaging in
any obscene acts at Charwalk Bar and Restaurant. No specific
overt acts are attributed to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's presence
at Charwalk Bar and Restaurant is as a “customer”.

7. In the case of Raj Jiten Chheda v/s. The State of
Maharashtra1, the facts before this Court involved Petitioners,
identified as "customers," who were present at the scene of an
incident involving an obscene dance. This Court, after examining
various other decisions, observed in paragraph nos. 11 to 13 as
follows :-

“11. To add to this, there is no allegation of any overt act
on the part of the applicant. Nor there is material to indicate
that there was either conspiracy, intentional aid or instigation
on the part of the applicant so as to constitute an abetment
for the commission of the offences for which the applicant
and the co-accused have been arraigned.

12. In the case of Rushabh Minishkumar Mehta (supra), a
Division Bench of this Court, in an almost identical fact
situation, enunciated that as regards the provisions of the Act,
2016, mere mentioning names of the customers in the FIR
and the chargesheet would not suffice. In the case of Akash
R. Katla and Ors. (supra), another Division Bench of this
Court, after adverting to the decision in the case of Rushabh
M. Mehta (supra), enunciated the position as under:

“8. In the case of Rushabh Mehta & Anr. (supra), the
petitioners therein had challenged the FIR registered
1. Criminal Application No. 1172 of 2025 decided on 07.11.2025.
Page 3 of 6
Gitalaxmi 30-WP-1208-2024.doc

for offence under Sections 294, 111 read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 8(1), 8(2) and
8(4) of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance
in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection
of Dignity of Women (Working Therein) Act, 2016.
The petitioners therein were present at the place of
incident where obscene dance was performed. This
Court had observed that for attracting Section 294 of
the IPC, the person against whom the offence is
alleged should indulge in any obscene act at a public
place. No such allegations were attributed to the
petitioners therein. Similarly, Section 114 of IPC can
be invoked where a person is liable when he is an
abettor present when the alleged offence is
committed. It was further observed that mere
mentioning names of the accused in the FIR and the
charge-sheet would not be sufficient to attract penal
provisions invoked against them.”

13. In the case of Nirav Raval and Ors. (supra), another
Division Bench of this Court observed that, mere presence of
the Petitioners at the relevant place and time as customers
when two women were allegedly dancing in an obscene
manner was not sufficient to attract the offences. The
observations in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 read as under:

“6. In view of rival submissions, we have perused the
F.I.R., witnesses' statement and charge-sheet. The
Petitioners have been figured in the F.I.R. as
'customers’, present in the hotel, when the women
were dancing. However, the concerned waiter could
not be examined by the Investigating Officer as he
had already left. There is no material to show that,
when the customers gave the Indian Currency notes
to the waiter, the Petitioners were amongst said
customers and they only gave currency notes to the
waiter with a specific instruction to blow it on the
dancing women. No other specific overt-act has been
attributed to the Petitioners so as to attract the
offences punishable under Sections 294, 114 r/w. 34
Page 4 of 6
Gitalaxmi 30-WP-1208-2024.doc

of I.P.C. against them. Therefore, mere presence of
the Petitioners at the relevant place and time, as
‘customers’, when the two women were dancing
allegedly in obscene manner, is not sufficient to
attract the said offence.

7. In Manish Parshottam Rughwani And Ors. Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and anr.2 the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court quashed the F.I.R. for similar offence
alleged against the customers, for the reasons that,
the Petitioners therein were merely present in the bar
at the relevant time. However, no specific overt-act
was attributed to them. For this conclusion the
Division Bench considered the decisions of this Court
in the case of Jitendra R. Kamat Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and anr.3 and Rushabh M. Mehta and
anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra4. The decision in
Manish Parshottam Rughwani (supra) is clearly
applicable to the case in hand.”

8. The case of Raj Jiten Chheda (supra) clearly applies to the
present case. There is no material in the impugned FIR and charge
sheet that would be sufficient to attract the penal provisions
invoked against the Petitioner.

9. Relying on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others v/s. Bhajan Lal
and Others5, this would be a fit case to exercise powers under
Section 528 of the BNSS to prevent abuse of justice.

10. In view of the above, Criminal Writ Petition is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (a). Consequently, the impugned FIR
bearing No. 129 of 2018 dated 11.03.2018 registered with
2. Criminal Writ Petition (St) No. 4343 of 2024 decided on 05.04.2024.
3. Criminal Writ Petition No. 4603 of 2021 decided on 06.09.2022.
4. Criminal Writ Petition (St) No. 4799 of 2020 decided on 14.01.2021.
5. 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335.
Page 5 of 6
Gitalaxmi 30-WP-1208-2024.doc

Kasturba Marg Police Station, Mumbai and the charge-sheet
bearing Case No. 1180/PW/2020, pending on the file of the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 68th Court at Borivali, Mumbai,
arising out of the impugned FIR, are quashed. Criminal
proceedings against the Petitioner arising out of the impugned FIR
are closed.

11. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1208 of 2024 is disposed of. No
order as to costs.

[ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.]

Digitally signed
by GITALAXMI
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2026.03.12
19:51:49 +0530

Page 6 of 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…