Mere Employee Discharging Duty: Bombay HC Quashes Obscenity Charges Against Waiter In Dance Bar
|The Bombay High Court quashed obscenity charges against a waiter in a Bar where women were dancing, while holding that he was not found to have been doing any explicit act that can demonstrate an external manifestation of the term ‘encouraging’. The Court also took note of the fact that the accused was a mere employee of the owner of Bar and he was found to be discharging his duty of serving the customers food and drink as per his employment profile.
While quashing the charges under Section 294 and 114 of the IPC against the waiter (petitioner), the Bench noted that the petitioner was only serving as a waiter in the said bar and there was no allegation against him that he himself was indulging in any of the alleged obscene acts or was abetting it.
A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale observed, “ There is only a generic statement of the informant and other witnesses that, the waiters were also encouraging the women artists to dance in an obscene and provocative manner. The Petitioner is not found to have been doing any explicit act that can demonstrate an external manifestation of the term ‘encouraging’. He was not found to be throwing notes of Indian currency on the dancing women. Furthermore there is also no material to suggest that, the Petitioner was an abettor present when the offense was committed.”
Advocate Chaitanya Malgaonkar appeared for the petitioner, while APP Ajay Patil represented the respondent.
The prosecution alleged that the police, acting on secret information about illegal activities at a Bar and Restaurant, raided the premises. They found an orchestra playing while more than four women, referred to as Bar Girls, were dancing and making obscene gestures to entertain customers. The women were allegedly making provocative gestures and attempting to get physical with the customers. The Petitioner was one of the waiters serving at the Bar/Restaurant.
The High Court explained that in order to attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 294 and 114 of the IPC, the accused must indulge in doing any obscene act in a public place or singing, reciting or uttering any obscene song in or near a public place. “There is no material on record to indicate that, the Petitioner who is either doing any obscene act or singing or uttering any obscene song,” the Court noted.
“There is only a generic statement of the informant and other witnesses that, the waiters were also encouraging the women artists to dance in an obscene and provocative manner. The Petitioner is not found to have been doing any explicit act that can demonstrate an external manifestation of the term ‘encouraging’. He was not found to be throwing notes of Indian currency on the dancing women,” the Bench remarked.
The Court referred to its decision in Manish Parshottam Rughwani v. The State of Maharashtra (2024), wherein the Coordinate Bench of the High Court held that a person could not be prosecuted for merely being present in the Bar and Restaurant at the relevant time when no specific overt act was attributed to them.
Consequently, the Court held, “We have no hesitation in holding that, no offence is made out qua the Petitioner herein.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Santosh Paul Rodrigues v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:37110-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Chaitanya Malgaonkar, Dharmesh Shah, Nikhil Agarwal, Punit Singh and Melwyn Pereira
Respondent: APP Ajay Patil