The division judge bench of the Bombay High Court held that in order to attract Section 294 of the I.P.C., it is necessary that, the accused person indulges in doing any obscene act in a public place or singing, reciting or uttering any obscene song in or near a public place. Furthermore, merely because the customers found in the Bar and Restaurant were enjoying the show and ‘encouraging’ the women artists to dance can’t be booked under Section 294 of the IPC.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the informant is a police constable, who received secret information, and upon receiving the said information they prepared a raiding party and reached to Sea Princess Bar and Restaurant and found certain objectionable activities taking place in the said Restaurant. The raiding party saw women masquerading as waitresses dancing obscenely and customers throwing Indian currency notes towards the women. The men stewards and waiters were collecting the said money. It was also found that the customers were encouraging the dancing women to make obscene gestures while dancing. The Applicant herein was found to be one of the customers watching the obscene dance and acts of the women. Thereafter, the FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294 & 114 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 131(aa) of the Maharashtra Police Act. Aggrieved by this, the present petition has been filed in order to quash the criminal proceedings.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that merely being present at the place 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. It was furthermore contended that there exists no allegation against the accused and therefore, he is not liable to be prosecuted. The Petitioner relied upon the judgment titled Mr. Rushabh Minishkumar Mehta and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra.
Contentions of the State:
The state drew the attention of the court towards the FIR and contended that specific allegations have been attributed to a list of persons including the Petitioner, that encouraged the women in the Bar and Restaurant, to dance and make obscene gestures. Therefore, this amounts to participating in the obscene act.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that in order to attract the offences under Section 294 of the I.P.C. and Section 114 of the I.P.C., it is necessary that, the accused person indulges in doing any obscene act in a public place or singing, reciting, or uttering any obscene song in or near a public place.
The court noted that there exists no material on record which suggests that the Petitioner is either doing any obscene act or singing or uttering any obscene song. There is only a generic statement pertaining to the customers found in the Bar and Restaurant that they were enjoying the show and ‘encouraging’ the women artists.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Manish Parshottam Rughwani and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that no offence is made out against the Petitioner.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the Petition.
Case Title: Mitesh Ramesh Punmiya V. The State of Maharashtra
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A S Gadkari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale
Case No.: Criminal Writ Petition No. 2376 of 2023
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Rutuj Warick a/w Mr. Shubhankar Avhad i/b Mr. Anuj Tiwari
Advocate for the State: Mr. Vinod Chate, A.P.P