The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, has quashed criminal proceedings against four individuals accused of abetting obscene dance performances in a Mumbai bar. The judgment, delivered by Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Shyam C. Chandak, emphasizes that mere presence at the scene without specific overt acts is insufficient to establish criminal culpability.
Background of the Case
The case, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1708 of 2024, stemmed from an incident on September 18, 2019, at Sandeep Palace Bar and Restaurant in Mumbai. Police Head Constable Rajeshkumar Tiwari, during a surveillance duty, reported observing two women dancing “obscenely” at the establishment. A subsequent police raid confirmed the information, leading to the arrest of several individuals, including the four petitioners:
1. Nirav Raval (48)
2. Kaushal Shah (49)
3. Chirag Mehta (49)
4. Pravan Desai (48)
The accused were charged under Sections 294 (obscene acts and songs), 114 (abettor present when offence is committed) read with 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, and various sections of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (working therein) Act, 2016.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Decision
The primary contention revolved around whether the petitioners’ mere presence in the bar during the alleged obscene dance performance constituted abetment of the offense. The court examined the following issues:
1. Sufficiency of Evidence: The court found no concrete evidence in the charge sheet supporting the claim that the petitioners instigated or encouraged the dancers by instructing waiters to shower currency notes on them.
2. Overt Acts: The judgment highlighted that no specific overt acts were attributed to the petitioners beyond their presence as customers in the bar.
3. Interpretation of Abetment: The court emphasized that mere presence, without any active participation or encouragement, is insufficient to establish abetment.
Quoting the judgment, the court observed:
“No other specific overt-act has been attributed to the Petitioners so as to attract the offences punishable under Sections 294, 114 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. against them. Therefore, mere presence of the Petitioners at the relevant place and time, as ‘customers’, when the two women were dancing allegedly in obscene manner, is not sufficient to attract the said offence.”
Precedents Cited
The court relied on previous judgments, including:
1. Manish Parshottam Rughwani v. State of Maharashtra and anr.
2. Jitendra R. Kamat v. The State of Maharashtra and anr.
3. Rushabh M. Mehta and anr. v. State of Maharashtra
These precedents established that mere presence without specific overt acts is not sufficient to sustain charges in similar cases.
Based on these considerations, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the four petitioners.
Ms. Laxmi Raman, assisted by Nigel Quraishy, represented the petitioners, while Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, Assistant Public Prosecutor, appeared for the State of Maharashtra.
