The court ruled that mere allegations without evidence of annoyance do not support prosecution under the relevant sections, and procedural compliance is essential for non-cognizable offences.

ORAL ORDER

Since the issues involved in these petitions are similar, and the allegations are of a similar nature, they have been clubbed together, heard jointly, and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners are proprietors of Bar and Restaurant establishments and have approached this Court challenging the registration of an FIR for offences punishable under Sections 104 , 103, 105, 31, and 92(O) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 ; Section 4 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 ; Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 ; and Sections 296 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 . The petitioners seek quashing of the said FIR and other consequential reliefs.

3. The complaint, which gave rise to the FIR, was registered based on information received from the Assistant Commissioner, Women’s Cell (CCB), and the Commissioner of Police. It was alleged that indecent dance performances were being conducted in the petitioners’ establishments for the amusement of customers. Acting upon directions issued by their superior officers, the authorities called upon the petitioners to produce the Digital Video Recorder (DVR) footage. The FIR was subsequently registered, alleging that the petitioners had violated various licensing conditions prescribed under the Karnataka Excise Act, the Karnataka Police Act, and applicable labour laws. It was further alleged that the petitioners had brought in women from other states, dressed them in obscene clothing, made them perform dances in the middle of the bar under flashing colored lights and loud music, and used their gestures and seductive conduct to lure customers. It is also alleged that the petitioners collected extra money from customers through these women and were thereby engaging in illegal activities.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, even assuming the allegations made in the FIR to be true, the essential ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 296 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , are not met. It was further contended that in the absence of any specific complaint by an individual claiming annoyance or harassment, the registration of the FIR based solely on DVR footage is impermissible and constitutes an abuse of the process of law. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.S. Madhanagopal & Another v. K. Lalitha, Criminal Appeal No. 1759/2022, disposed of on 10.10.2022.

5. In response, the learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , does not require that a specific person must be annoyed by the obscene act. The section criminalizes any obscene act performed in a public place, or the singing, reciting, or uttering of obscene songs or words in or near a public place. Reliance was placed on the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ameer Basha v. State of Andhra Pradesh , 2010 SCC OnLine AP 1154, and the decision of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Zafar Ahmad Khan v. State , 1962 SCC OnLine All 170.

6. It is further submitted that the offences under Sections 296 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , are cognizable in nature. Section 296 penalizes individuals who perform obscene acts, or sing, recite, or utter obscene songs, ballads, or words in or near any public place, to the annoyance of others. The punishment prescribed includes imprisonment for a term of up to three months, or a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both.

7. A plain reading of Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 , reveals that in order to constitute an offence under this provision, the act must involve an obscene gesture or utterance performed in a public place, and must cause annoyance to others.

8. In the case of N.S. Madhanagopal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that mere utterance WP No. 7157 of 2025 of obscene words is insufficient