The mere presence of an accused at a location of alleged illegal activity does not suffice for prosecution under relevant statutes without specific overt acts.

JUDGMENT :

Sandesh D. Patil, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant and learned Addl.P.P. for the Respondent -State.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with consent of both the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned Addl.P.P. waives notice on behalf of the Respondent- State.

3. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking to quash the First Information Report bearing No.48/2019 dated 11.04.2019 registered with the Andheri Police Station as well as the chargesheet and the proceeding, bearing C.C. No.3183/PW/2019, pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 65^th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.

4. The First Information Report bearing No.48/2019 was lodged on 11.04.2019 under the provisions of Sections 3 and 8 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (working therein) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Prohibition Act”) and Section 131 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The first informant was working in the police department. It is alleged that the first informant had received certain information that in a hotel named Durga Prasad (Mayuri Restaurant and Bar), Sahar Road, Kol Dongri, Andheri (East), Mumbai, singers/ waitresses were being forced to dance and perform obscene and illicit dance, and that the restaurant owner, manager, cashier and staff were inciting the female bar dancers to perform obscene and illicit dance. Pursuant to the information received, the raid was conducted and the persons named in the First Information Report were accosted along with certain electronic accessories. The First Information Report was registered with the Andheri Police Station bearing No.48/2019 on 11/04/2019 under the provisions of the sections 3 and 8 of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (working therein) Act, 2016 and Section 131 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

5. After investigation was carried out, the police filed chargesheet under the provisions of section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The present Applicant is chargesheeted. The Applicant approached this Court on the ground that on a bare perusal of the FIR and the chargesheet, no offence is disclosed against him. He stated that the statements of witnesses recorded in the said chargesheet do not even remotely suggest that the Applicant was indulging in the offences under the provisions of Sections 3 and 8 of the Prohibition Act, 2016. So, also, no offence can be said to have been committed by him under section 131 of the Maharashtra Police Act. It is the contention of the Applicant that he was merely present in the bar and that he had not indulged in any illegal activity as contemplated in the aforesaid sections. The learned Counsel for the Applicant contended that the statement of witnesses which are recorded do not suggest any involvement of the Applicant in the said offence.

6. The learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the Respondent, argued that the chargesheet is filed and that the name of the Applicant is appearing in the First Information Report as well as in the statement of the witnesses which are recorded. She states that no grounds of whatsoever nature are made out for the purpose of quashing of the FI.R. as well as the chargesheet. She further states that full-fledged trial is necessary and that the application of the Applicant be dismissed in its entirety.

7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their help and assistance, we have perused the documents placed