Bombay High Court
Tushar Dhanraj Ranka And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 August, 2025
Author: A. S. Gadkari
Bench: A. S. Gadkari
2025:BHC-AS:35804-DB
KVM WP 1050-2025.doc
Digitally signed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by KANCHAN
KANCHAN VINOD
VINOD MAYEKAR
MAYEKAR Date:
2025.08.20
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
15:20:44 +0530
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1050 OF 2025
1. Tushar Dhanraj Ranka ]
Age 42 years, Occ. Business, ]
Nirmala Apartment, ]
Mumbai-pune road, Opp.Mayur Hotel]
Chinchwad, Pune-411019 ]
2. Darshit Mahendrabhai Soni ]
Age 33 years, Occ:business ]
A 101 Sokulam Housing Society, ]
Patil nagar, Chikli, Pune-411062 ]
3. Amit Vimalchand Ranka ]
Age 40 years, Occ:business ]
rd
Flat no. 4, 3 floor, Visava Sraha ]
Rachna, Pune Road, above IDBI Bank]
Chinchwadi st Pune-411019 ]
4. Vikas Champatraj Shah ]
Age 46 years, Occ:business, ]
P-5, Flat No.404, Old Mumbai Road, ]
Empire Estate, Chinchwad, ]
Pune, City - 411019 ] ...Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra ]
Through @ ]
Panvel Taluka Police Station ]
In CR No. 166 of 2023 ] ...Respondent
______________________
Ms. Sana Raees Khan a/w. Ms.Neha Balani for Petitioners.
Smt.Prajakta P. Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent - State.
Mr.Ananda Harugade, API, Panvel Taluka Police Station present.
______________________
1/7
::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2025 21:49:36 :::
KVM WP 1050-2025.doc
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 5th AUGUST 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 20th AUGUST 2025
JUDGMENT ( Per Rajesh S. Patil, J.) :
–
1) By this Petition, the Petitioners are seeking quashing of S.C.C.
No. 4322/2023 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class
(4th Court), Panvel arising out of C.R.No. 166 of 2023, dated 1 st July, 2023
registered against them and other accused persons at Panvel Taluka Police
Station, District Navi Mumbai, for offences punishable under Sections 294,
188, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC‘), 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 ‘Prohibition Act‘), and Section 33(w) and 131
of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (for short ‘Police Act‘).
2) The FIR came to be registered against Petitioners and other
accused persons with an allegation that obscene dances were being
performed by females in a Bar known as “Bindas (Sai palace)” owned by
Mr.Baburao T. Mhatre and Mr.Raju Shetty, wherein Petitioners were present
as customers while the raid was conducted by the police.
3) According to Petitioners, even if the contents of the FIR and the
charge-sheet submitted pursuant to investigation are perused, no role is
attributable to Petitioners, attracting the offences punishable under Sections
2/7
::: Uploaded on – 20/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 20/08/2025 21:49:36 :::
KVM WP 1050-2025.doc
294, 188, 34 of the IPC, Sections 3, 8(1), 8(2) and 8(4) of Prohibition Act
read with Section 33(w) and 131 of the Police Act. Learned Advocate for
Petitioners reiterated the contention that there were no specific allegations
against Petitioners and that the material brought on record, even if
accepted to be true, does not make out any offence against Petitioners. On
this basis, it was submitted that when the ingredients of the alleged
offences were not made out, there was no question of Petitioners being
made to face the trial. It is for these reasons that Petitioners seek to invoke
extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, for quashing of the said FIR as against them.
4) The learned Advocate for Petitioners has relied upon the
following judgments of this Court to buttress his submissions :-
(i) Manish Parshottam Rughwani & Ors. V/s. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2343,
(ii) Nirav Raval V/s. State of Maharashtra reported in 2024
SCC OnLine Bom 2339,
(iii) Order of this Court in case of Jitendra Ratnakar Kamat
vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr . in Criminal Writ Petition
No.4603 of 2021 dated 6th September, 2022,
(iv) Rushabh Mehta V/s. State of Maharashtra judgment
delivered in Criminal Writ Petition (St) No.4799 of 2020.
5) On the other hand, the learned APP representing the State
submitted that, the name of Petitioners are clearly stated in the FIR and the
3/7
::: Uploaded on – 20/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 20/08/2025 21:49:36 :::
KVM WP 1050-2025.doc
material collected in the charge-sheet indicates their presence at the spot of
incident i.e. the said Bar, where the alleged crime was committed.
Therefore the Petition deserves to be dismissed, as the charge-sheet cannot
be quashed at this stage.
6) We have heard the learned Advocate for the rival parties, and
have perused the FIR and the charge-sheet. It is necessary to examine the
specific contention raised on behalf of Petitioners that there are no
allegations against Petitioners demonstrating that the ingredients of the
alleged offences could be said to be present against the Petitioners. The
Petitioners are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 294, 188,
34 of the IPC, Sections 3, 8(1), 8(2) and 8(4) of Prohibition Act read with
Section 33(w) and 131 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
7) 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
directly qua the Petitioners. As regards Section 294 of IPC, there is no
allegation in the FIR that, the Petitioners were doing any obscene act,
singing, reciting or uttering any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near
any public place. Hence, in our opinion, as regards the provisions of Section
294 of IPC, mere mentioning name of Petitioners in the FIR and the
charge-sheet would not suffice.
4/7
::: Uploaded on – 20/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 20/08/2025 21:49:36 :::
KVM WP 1050-2025.doc 8) 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
Petitioners are arraigned as accused, since they were the customers found in
the bar. Hence, in our view Section 188 of IPC would not be attracted to
them. Present Petitioners admittedly were just customers in the bar.
Therefore, in our opinion they cannot be held liable as that of owner,
manager, cashier and waiters. Hence, the ingredients of the said offence
under Section 34 of IPC is not attracted qua the Petitioner, he merely being
a customer.
9) Also in order to attract Sections 3, 8(1), 8(2) and 8(4) of
Prohibition 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 Prohibition Act will not be
attracted to the present Petitioners who are alleged to be persons 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 Petitioners were showering coins, currency, notes or any
form of money towards a dancer or misbehaving indecently with any
5/7
::: Uploaded on – 20/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 20/08/2025 21:49:36 :::
KVM WP 1050-2025.doc
woman. Moreover, there is no allegation that the present Petitioners had
touched any woman in the said bar, where the raid was conducted. In our
opinion, as regards the provisions of the Prohibition Act, mere mentioning
name of Petitioners in the FIR and the charge-sheet would not suffice. As
far as Section 33(w) of the Police Act is concerned, the same gets attracted,
with licensing or controlling places of public amusement and Section 131 of
the Police Act, deals with contravening rules. These Sections admittedly
does not apply qua the Petitioners who are not the owners of the bar.
Considering the allegation made in the FIR and charge-sheet, in our view,
Sections 294, 188, 34 of the IPC, Sections 3, 8(1), 8(2) and 8(4) of
Prohibition Act read with Section 33(w) and 131 of the Police Act, would
not be attracted to the Petitioners who are alleged to be the persons present
in the said restaurant/bar, as customers.
10) 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 accused persons 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 Petitioners are covered in the first
three clauses thereof, as no case is made out against Petitioners about the
alleged offences, even if the FIR and other material on record is accepted.
The name of Petitioners are merely mentioned in the FIR and Panchnama as
a customer and therefore, the Petition deserves to be allowed.
6/7
::: Uploaded on – 20/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 20/08/2025 21:49:36 :::
KVM WP 1050-2025.doc 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 and (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).
13) The S.C.C. No. 4322/2023 pending before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class (4th Court), Panvel arising out of Charge-sheet No.
224 of 2023, dated 11th September, 2023, qua the Petitioners is quashed.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.) 7/7 ::: Uploaded on - 20/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2025 21:49:36 :::