The Bombay High Court has held that merely shouting loudly at each other on a public street, without any allegation of obscene, indecent or morally offensive conduct, does not by itself constitute a cognizable offence under Section 85(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav was hearing a plea seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Pimpri Police Station against two persons accused of shouting at each other loudly on a public road while allegedly being under the influence of alcohol.
Background Of The Case
The FIR and subsequent chargesheet alleged that the applicants were under the influence of alcohol and were loudly arguing with each other on a public street. According to the prosecution, their conduct resulted in disturbance to public peace and caused inconvenience to members of the public.
The applicants approached the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, contending that the allegations, even if accepted as they stood, did not satisfy the ingredients of the offence invoked against them.
Court Examines Section 85(1) Of Maharashtra Prohibition Act
The High Court examined the allegations in the FIR and chargesheet and found that the prosecution had not alleged any specific act of obscenity, depravity or moral offensiveness.
The Court noted that the case was essentially based on the allegation that the two applicants were shouting loudly at each other. There was no specific allegation that they had directed such conduct towards a third person or that their conduct otherwise amounted to the type of disorderly behaviour contemplated under Section 85(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act.
Mere Consumption Of Alcohol Not Sufficient
The Court also clarified that consumption of alcohol, by itself, cannot automatically result in an offence under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act.
According to the Court, whether behaviour is improperly or disorderly must be determined from the facts and circumstances of each individual case. Mere consumption of alcohol cannot be treated as sufficient to establish criminal liability under the provision.
No Cognizable Offence Made Out
After examining the allegations on their face, the Court concluded that the FIR and chargesheet did not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.
The High Court therefore found it appropriate to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to prevent continuation of criminal proceedings where the allegations do not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence.
FIR Quashed With ₹10,000 Costs
The Bombay High Court accordingly allowed the application and quashed and set aside the FIR.
However, the Court directed the applicants to pay ₹10,000 as costs. The Court also made observations regarding unnecessary litigation consuming judicial time and public resources, particularly in proceedings where the criminal case ultimately requires the High Court’s intervention for quashing.
Significance Of The Judgment
The ruling reinforces that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained merely on the basis of broad or general allegations when the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are absent.
The judgment also highlights that:
- Mere loud shouting between two persons does not automatically constitute a cognizable offence.
- Consumption of alcohol alone is insufficient to attract Section 85(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act.
- Allegations of disorderly conduct must be examined in the context of the specific facts of each case.
- The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS to prevent continuation of proceedings that do not disclose an offence.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s decision emphasises that criminal law must be applied on the basis of specific statutory ingredients rather than vague allegations of disturbance or improper conduct. Where the allegations in an FIR, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence, continuation of the criminal proceedings can be prevented through the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
