Read Time: 04 minutes
The high court quashed the FIR after the accused's counsel argued that the accused had entered the bar for only 15 minutes as a customer.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Sunil Shukre and Justice MM Sathaye recently quashed an FIR that was registered in 2018, against a 35-year-old who had entered a dance bar where obscene acts were being committed.
Accused, Prince Kanti Makwana, represented by advocate Hare Krishna Mishra and advocate Satish Yadav, had filed a plea to quash the FIR lodged against him by the Mumbai Police. The plea was filed on the grounds that the accused had been falsely implicated in the case, despite being a mere customer who visited the restaurant around 10:15 pm to have dinner and a cup of tea.
The Mumbai Police had registered cases against the owner, manager, cashier, waiter, and bar girls of the restaurant, accusing them of engaging in obscene dance and other acts while serving liquor to customers.
The charges were brought under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants, and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (working therein) Act, 2016.
The bar staff was further implicated in instigating the bar girls to perform indecent dances without the proper licenses. The restaurant staff was also booked for obstructing and preventing the police from discharging their lawful duty.
Mishra, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the accused only spent a temporary period of 15 minutes in the bar and that the chargesheet did not attribute any overt act to him.
The court then quashed the FIR against the accused and noted that:
“The Petitioner cannot be said to be a person, who had done something as amounting to commission of any of the offences which have been registered in the present crime or was instrumental in abetting any of those crimes. Thus, there is no material available on record on the basis of which it can be said that the offences registered in the present case or any of them are/is prima facie made out against the Petitioner. Therefore, this is a fit case for making interference in the matter. Hence, the order."
Case title: Prince Kanti Makwana vs State of Maharashtra & Anr
Please Login or Register
