Bombay High Court
Mohd. Farooq Abdul Ghafoor Chippa vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 June, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:23726-DB
KVM WP 1676 OF 2022.doc
Digitally
signed by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KANCHAN
KANCHAN VINOD
VINOD MAYEKAR
MAYEKAR Date:
2025.06.17
15:03:23
+0530
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1676 OF 2022
Mohd. Farooq Abdul Ghafoor Chippa,
Aged 48 years, Indian inhabitant,
Occ :- Business,
B. No. 9 Room No.7/8, Municipal Colony,
Kidwai Nagar, Aarey,
AK Char Road, Mumbai .....Petitioner
Vs.
State Of Maharashtra,
Through Public Prosecutor,
Appellate Side, High Court, Bombay .....Respondent
______________________
Mr. Rahul S. Yadav i/b. Mr. Rajesh P. Khobragade for the Petitioner.
Mr. Kiran C. Shinde, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State.
______________________
CORAM
: A. S. GADKARI AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 10th JUNE, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 17th JUNE, 2025
JUDGMENT ( PER RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) :
-
1) By this Petition, the Petitioner is seeking quashing of C.C.No.
1201792/PW/2019 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
12th Court at Bandra arising out of C.R.No. 152 of 2019 registered against
him and other accused persons at Bandra Police Station, Mumbai, for
KVM WP 1676 OF 2022.doc
offences punishable under 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
(for short, "Act of 2016").
2) By an Order dated 11th July, 2023, this Petition was admitted
and interim relief in the form of stay to the trial of the case pending before
the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 71st Court at Bandra was granted.
3) The FIR came to be registered against Petitioner and other
accused persons on 1st August, 2019, with an allegation that obscene dances
were being performed by females in a Bar managed by the co-accused Mr.
Pravin Shetty, 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 said offences. Learned Advocate for
Petitioner reiterated the contention that there were no specific allegations
against Petitioner and that the material brought on record, even if accepted
to be true, did not make out any offence against Petitioner. 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
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read
KVM WP 1676 OF 2022.doc
with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the said
FIR as against him.
5) On the other hand, the learned APP representing the State
submitted that, the name of Petitioner was clearly stated in the FIR and that
the material collected in the charge-sheet indicates his presence at the spot
of incident and therefore, the Petition deserves to be dismissed.
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 3, 8(1), 8(2) and 8(4)
of Act of 2016.
7) A perusal of the above quoted provisions would clearly indicate
that for attracting offence under the Act, 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)
KVM WP 1676 OF 2022.doc
and 8(2) are applicable to an owner, proprietor, manager or any person
acting on his 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.
8) 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. There is lack of material to indicate that the ingredients of the
offences alleged under the said Act are present against Petitioner in the
entire charge-sheet.
9) In the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and
Others, 1992 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.
10) In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (b). The Case No. 1201792/PW/2019 pending before the
KVM WP 1676 OF 2022.doc
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court at Bandra arising out of C.R.
No.152 of 2019 registered at the Bandra Police Station, Mumbai as against
the Petitioner is quashed.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
