Bombay High Court
Tejas Haresh Hakani vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 June, 2025
Author: A.S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:25217-DB
dtg 43-Apl-1872-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (A.P.L.) NO. 1872 OF 2024
Tejas Haresh Hakani ]
Age:- 45 years, Occ.:- Business, ]
Residing at 604, Kasturi Apartment, ]
Bapubhai Vashi Road, ]
Vile Parle West, Mumbai 400 056. ] ... Applicant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ]
(At the instance of Andheri Police Station, ]
Mumbai in C.R. No. 372 of 2022) ] ... Respondent
_______________________________________
Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w Mr. Rahul Tripathi, Mr. Ashish Dubey and Mr. Ajay
Dubey for Applicant.
Mr. Kiran C. Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.
Mr. Jagdish More, P.S.I., Andheri police station, present.
_______________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 19th June 2025.
JUDGMENT :
(PER : A.S. GADKARI, J.) :-
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of
learned Advocates for respective parties, heard finally.
2) Present Application is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, (Cr.P.C.) for quashing of C.C.No.PW/6500304/2023, pending
on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, (65 th Court), Andheri, Mumbai,
dtg 43-Apl-1872-2024.doc
arising out of C.R. No. 372 of 2022, dated 23rd April 2022 registered with
Andheri Police Station, Mumbai, under Sections 308, 294, 114 read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, (I.P.C.) and Sections 3, 8 (1) (2) (4) of the Maharashtra
Prohibition Of Obscene Dance In Hotels, Restaurants And Bar Rooms And
Protection Of Dignity Of Women (Working Therein) Act, 2016.
3) Heard Mr. Naphade, learned counsel for Applicant and Mr. Shinde,
learned APP for Respondent-State. Perused entire record produced before us.
4) It is the case of prosecution that, upon receipt of confidential
information that, certain obscene acts were being performed and some women
were forced to dance obscenely in Sameet Punjab Restaurant and Bar (Sameet
Palace), situated at Bengali Chawl, Koldongari, Andheri (East), Mumbai, the
Police conducted raid on it on 22 nd April 2022, after 10.00 p.m. The pancha
witnesses noticed that, certain women dancers were dancing obscenely and the
customers present there were showering Indian currency notes on them, to
encourage such performances. During the search, the Applicant was found, at
the said place as a customer. After conducting the said raid, First Information
Report was lodged with Andheri police station, Mumbai.
5) Perusal of First Information Report itself clearly indicates that, the
Investigating Agency has also termed the Applicant as a 'customer', present in
the said restaurant. No specific role is attributed to him, either of encouraging
to the women dancers to dance obscenely or showering of Indian currency notes
on them. It is stated in the FIR that, Applicant was one of the person present as a
dtg 43-Apl-1872-2024.doc
'customer' and the Panchnama dated 22nd April 2022 also mentions about the
same fact. A perusal of the provisions applied to the present crime indicates
that, in order to attract the ingredients of the aforesaid offences, it is necessary
that, the accused person indulges in doing any obscene act in a public place or
singing, reciting, uttering any obscene song in or near a public place. There is no
material on record to indicate that, the Applicant is either indulging into any
obscene act or uttering any obscene song. The statement against the Applicant is
generic in nature i.e. a customer found at the said Bar and Restaurant and was
enjoying the show and encouraging the women artists. It is not the case of the
prosecution that, the Applicant was found to have doing any explicit act that can
demonstrate an external manifestation of the term 'encouraging'. He was not
actually found to be showering/throwing Indian currency notes on the women
dancers. There is no material at all even to suggest that, the Applicant was an
abettor present when the alleged offence was committed.
6) In the case of Manish Parshottam Raghuwani and Others Vs. The
State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 4343 of 2024,
decided on 5th April 2024, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that,
persons cannot be prosecuted for merely being present in the Bar and Restaurant
at the relevant time, when no specific overt act is attributed to them.
6.1) In the case of Mr. Rushabh Minishkumar Mehta and Another Vs.
State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 4799 of 2020,
decided on 14th January 2021, it is held that, merely being present in a situation
dtg 43-Apl-1872-2024.doc
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.
6.2) In the case of Nirav Raval and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra
and Another in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1708 of 2024, decided on 12 th July
2024, similar view is taken by this Court.
7) According to us, the case of the Applicant is covered by the
decisions of this Court in the cases of (i) Manish Parshottam Raghuwani (supra)
(ii) Mr. Rushabh Minishkumar Mehta (supra) and (iii) Nirav Raval and Others
(supra), followed in case of Mitesh Ramesh Punmiya Vs. The State of
Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2376 of 2023, decided on 10 th
September 2024.
8) Accordingly, the case No.PW/6500304/2023, pending on the file of
Judicial Magistrate First Class, (65th Court), Andheri, Mumbai against the
Applicant, deserves to be quashed.
9) Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
9.1) Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
( RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )
