Bombay High Court
RAKESH SHASHIKANT PATELversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the cited statutory provisions do not apply to a customer, and therefore the FIR against the petitioner must be quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, a customer at a dance bar, was named as accused No.11 in a FIR for alleged violations of multiple statutes, including sections of the IPC, tobacco advertising law, and municipal regulations. He filed a writ petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagaarik Suraksha Sanhita seeking to quash the FIR, arguing that the statutes apply only to the bar owner or operator, not to a patron. The court examined the charge sheet and noted that the petitioner had no specific role or overt act linking him to the alleged offences, and that the cited provisions target owners or those operating beyond permissible hours. It held that the statutes were inapplicable to a mere customer and therefore the FIR could not stand against him. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the order of taking cognizance and issuance of process was quashed.
Issues considered
- Whether the provisions of Section 294 IPC, Section 34 IPC, the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, the Mumbai Police Act, the Mumbai Prohibition Act, and the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act apply to a customer of a dance bar.
- Whether a writ petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagaarik Suraksha Sanhita can be entertained to quash a FIR against a person who is not the owner or operator of the establishment.
- Whether the petition is maintainable in view of the material on record.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- quash of FIR
- criminal procedure
- applicability of statutes
- customer liability
- Section 528
- Section 294 IPC
- tobacco advertising law
- municipal regulations
Judgment
17.WP.6649.2025.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6649 OF 2025
Rakesh Shashikant Patel .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Prashant Vasudeo Malik, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent – State.
PSI – Mr. Umesh More, Andheri Police Station present.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Malik, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Ms.
Talhar, learned APP for Respondent – State.
2. This Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagaarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quash and set aside of C.R.
No.438 of 2012 dated 29.12.2012 registered with Andheri Police
Station for the offences punishable under Section 294 read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 4 and 12 of the Cigarettes and
Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation
of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act,
2003; Section 33(w) and 135 of the Mumbai Police Act; Section 65(e),
81 and 83 of the Mumbai Prohibition Act, 1949 and Section 394 and
471 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1988.
1 of 3
17.WP.6649.2025.doc
3. Prima facie, it is seen that the Petitioner before me was a
customer who was one of the 10 customers who were having their
dinner alongwith alcohol and were smoking in the dance bar when
they were rounded up by a raiding team at 01:11 a.m. in the night.
The case of the prosecution emanating from the charge-sheet qua
Petitioner before me is prima facie clear. He is neither the owner of the
bar nor the establishment where the raid took place. Petitioner is an
independent businessman who was in fact rounded up alongwith 9
other customers who were at that time present in the bar having their
dinner alongwith alcohol.
4. The provisions of Section 294 and 34 of IPC and more
specifically the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco
Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and
Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 would not
apply to the Petitioner. No specific role or overt act is attributed to the
present Petitioner as can be seen from the material on record. Even
according to the prosecution case, it is seen that the Petitioner was a
customer who had visited the hotel on the said night and 13 out of the
16 prosecution witnesses being the police personnel themselves, no
case whatsoever is made out against the Petitioner who is arraigned as
accused No.11 in the present case.
2 of 3
17.WP.6649.2025.doc
5. I have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and also
heard the learned Prosecutor with regard to her objections to the
maintainability of the present Petition.
6. On going through the record of the case, it is prima facie
seen that the provisions of the aforesaid Act are applicable, or would
otherwise be applicable to the owner of the establishment and the
person who was running the said restaurant beyond the permissible
time limit. Insofar as the Petitioner, being a customer of the said
restaurant is concerned, the said provisions would not be applicable.
7. In view of the above, Writ Petition stands allowed in terms of
prayer clause ‘b’ which reads thus:-
“b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the
order of taking cognizance and issuance of process dated
20th July, 2013, passed in C.C. No.1332/PS of 2013
pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate,
Railway Mobile Court at Andheri arising out of C.R
No.438 of 2012 registered with Andheri Police Station qua
the Petitioner.”
8. In view of the above, Writ Petition is allowed and disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.04
11:28:59 +0530
3 of 3
Checking your session…