HC quashes FIR against man accused of throwing money in dance bar

Bombay High Court quashes case against man accused of indecent performance at bar. Court rules FIR lacked evidence linking him to any specific act.

Mumbai: The Bombay high court recently quashed a case filed against a man accused of throwing money at bar dancers and allegedly engaging in an indecent performance. The decision came after a petition filed by the man challenging the First Information Report (FIR) registered against him for his actions at a bar in Mumbai.

HT Image

A division bench of justice PD Naik and justice NR Borkar presided over the hearing of the applicant’s plea. The was booked under sections 294 (eve-teasing) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 33 (W) (preservation of public order) of Maharashtra Police Act, following an incident on January 2, 2016.

According to the prosecution, the police received information about ‘indecent’ dancing at the Indiana Bar & Restaurant located in Haji Ali, Mumbai, prompting them to conduct a raid.

During the raid, officers found bar dancers engaged in what was deemed an ‘indecent performance’, with several persons present, including staff and customers. Some customers were allegedly seen throwing money in response to the dance.

Advocate Shailesh Kharat, representing the applicant, contended that merely being present at the venue where the dance took place did not constitute aiding and abetting the offence. Kharat argued that customers should not be implicated as accused parties in the FIR, which listed approximately 39 individuals, including 20 customers.

In response, additional public prosecutor SE Pahad argued that the applicant had indeed aided and abetted the dancers in their alleged ‘obscene’ performance by throwing money in response to their actions.

However, the high court sided with the applicant, saying that the FIR lacked specific evidence linking him to any overt act. The court’s order stated, “...the FIR indicates the presence of the applicant at the place of incident. No specific overt act has been attributed to the applicant. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the applicant cannot be prosecuted for the said offences.”, the court observed while quashing the FIR.