Bombay High Court
Vaibhav Prashant Binayke vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 August, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:33277-DB
KVM WP 379-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
by KANCHAN
KANCHAN VINOD
VINOD MAYEKAR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MAYEKAR Date:
2025.08.05
15:33:18 +0530
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 379 OF 2025
Vaibhav Prashant Binayke ]
Age : 28 years, Occ : Business ]
R/o. Flat No. 1, Om Shanti Bhavan, ]
Chira Bazar, Hotel Sharda Ashram, ]
Mumbai ] ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ]
At the instance of ]
Tardeo Police Station, Mumbai ] ...Respondent
______________________
Mr. Alankar Kirpekar a/w. Mr.Susmit Phatale, Mr.Ayush Tiwari for
Petitioner.
Mr.Vinod Chate, APP for Respondent - State.
Mr. Meshram, PI, Tardeo Police Station, Mumbai.
______________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 31st JULY 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 5th AUGUST 2025
JUDGMENT ( Per Rajesh S. Patil, J.) :
-
1) Petitioner seeks to challenge criminal proceedings bearing C.C.
No. 146/PW/2024, pending before the learned Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai, arising out of C.R.
KVM WP 379-2025.doc
No. 339 of 2023 dated 6th August, 2023 registered with Tardeo Police
Station, Mumbai for the offenses punishable under Sections 188 read with
34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 3, 8(1) 8(2), 8(4) of
Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar
Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working Therein) Act, 2016
(for short "Act, 2016") and Section 131(A) of the Maharashtra Police Act.
2) The case of prosecution is that, on 6th August, 2023, the
informant Mr.Sudershan Sawant, a Police Constable of Mumbai Police was
on surveillance duty. On receipt of secret video clip, wherein it was seen
that, females were performing obscene dance, he shared the clip with his
Department. Accordingly, a raiding party alongwith Crime Detection Squad
was assembled and reached to Indiyana Bar and Restaurant and found
certain objectionable activities taking place in the said Restaurant. The
raiding party saw four females dancing in obscene manner and customers
encouraging the same. It was also found that, the customers were
encouraging the dancing women to make obscene gestures. The Petitioner
herein was found to be one of the customers watching the obscene dance
and the obscene acts of the women. The Police prepared Spot Panchanama
and the informant lodged the report leading to registration of the present
FIR.
3) The FIR came to be registered against manager, cashier,
waiters, bar owner and customers on 6 th August, 2023, with an allegation
KVM WP 379-2025.doc
that obscene dances were being performed by females in a Bar owned and
managed by the co-accused Mr. Rana Pratap Ramsumer Singh, wherein
Petitioner was present as a customer while the raid was conducted by the
police.
4) According to Petitioner, even if the contents of the FIR and the
charge-sheet submitted pursuant to investigation are perused, no role is
attributable to Petitioner, attracting the offences as levied. Learned
Advocate for Petitioner reiterated the contention that, there are no specific
allegations against Petitioner and that the material brought on record, even
if accepted to be true, does not make out any offence against Petitioner,
who was admittedly a customer. On this basis, it was submitted that, when
the ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out, there was no
question of Petitioner being made to face the trial. It is for these reasons
that Petitioner seek to invoke extra ordinary and inherent jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482
of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the said crime as against
him.
5) On the other hand, the learned APP representing the State
submitted that, the name of Petitioner has been clearly stated in the FIR
and that the material/statements annexed to the charge-sheet indicates his
presence at the spot of incident and therefore, the Petition deserves to be
dismissed.
KVM WP 379-2025.doc
6) Having heard the learned Advocate for the rival parties, we
have perused the FIR, charge-sheet and the material placed on record. It is
necessary to examine the specific contention raised on behalf of Petitioner
that there are no allegations against Petitioner demonstrating that the
ingredients of the alleged offences could be said to be present against
Petitioner. A perusal of the charge-sheet would show that Petitioner is
alleged to have committed offences under Sections 188 r/w. 34 of Indian
Penal Code (IPC), Sections 3, 8(1), 8(2) and 8(4) of 'Act of 2016' and
Sections 131 (A) Maharashtra Police Act.
7) It is not an allegation in the FIR and in the charge-sheet that,
the present petitioner was himself showering currency on the girls and was
instigating them for performing obscene dance. The singers who's statement
has been recorded, doesn't mention the name of the present petitioner as a
person who was showering money on girls performing the said dance. A
bare perusal to Section 188 of IPC clearly indicates that it is attracted when
knowing that an order promulgated by public servant, someone disobeys
such direction will be liable to be punished. The present Petitioner is
arraigned as accused, since he was a customer found in the bar. Hence, in
our view Section 188 of IPC would not be attracted to him. Present
Petitioner admittedly was just a customer in the bar. Therefore, in our
opinion he cannot be held liable as that of owner, manager, cashier and
waiters. Hence, the ingredients of the said offence under Section 34 of IPC
KVM WP 379-2025.doc
is not attracted qua the Petitioner, he merely being a customer.
8) Also in order to attract Sections 3, 8(1), 8(2) and 8(4) of 'Act of
2016', a person against whom the offence is alleged is said to have indulged
in any obscene act at a public place. A perusal of the material on record
shows that no such allegations are made against Petitioner. Considering
the allegation made in the FIR and charge-sheet, in our view, Section 3,
Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the 'Act of 2016' will not be attracted to the
present Petitioner who is alleged to be a person who had been in the said
restaurant/bar as customer. The said Sections 3, 8(1) and 8(2) are
applicable to an owner, proprietor, manager or any person acting on their
behalf. As regards Section 8(4), there is no allegation in the FIR that the
present Petitioner was showering coins, currency, notes or any form of
money towards a dancer or misbehaving indecently with any woman.
Moreover, there is no allegation that the present Petitioner had touched any
woman in the said bar, where the raid was conducted. In our opinion, as
regards the provisions of the 'Act of 2016', mere mentioning name of
Petitioner in the FIR and the charge-sheet would not suffice. As far as
Section 131(A) of the Maharashtra Police Act is concerned, the same is
attracted, which deals with public entertainment place is concerned. The
said Section according to us would be attracted, towards the
owner/manager or staff of the said bar. Present Petitioner is just a customer
of the bar. Therefore, Section 131(A) according to our view, will not be
KVM WP 379-2025.doc
attracted.
9) We are of the opinion that, there is lack of material to indicate
that the ingredients of the offences alleged under the said three Acts are
present against Petitioner in the entire charge-sheet.
10) In the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and
Others, 1992 reported in Supp (1) SCC 335 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
laid down certain tests to verify as to whether an accused person needs to
be made to face a trial or the FIR can be quashed. A perusal of the above
quoted paragraph would show that the case of Petitioner is covered in the
first three clauses thereof, as no case is made out against Petitioner about
the alleged offences, even if the FIR and other material on record is
accepted. The name of Petitioner is merely mentioned in the FIR and
Panchnama as a customer and therefore, the Petition deserves to be
allowed.
11) We have already taken similar view in our decisions in cases of
(i) Mohd. Farooq Abdul Ghafoor Chippa vs. State of Maharashtra in
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1676 of 2022 dated 17th June, 2025 (ii) Abdul
Shoaib Ibrahim Donkadhagothi & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ,
in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1375 of 2025 dated 17th July, 2025.
12) In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a).
12.1) The C.C. No. 146/PW/2024 pending before the learned
KVM WP 379-2025.doc
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4 th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai,
arising out of C.R. No. 339 of 2023 dated 6 th August, 2023 registered with
Tardeo Police Station, Mumbai as against the Petitioner is quashed.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
