THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7790 OF 2010 Between : T.Raju Yadav and others. ....PETITIONERS A N D The State, SHO. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7790 OF 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners-A.1 to A.14 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.454 of 2010 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, for the offence punishable under Section 294 read with 109 IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. According to the prosecution case on 04.06.2010 at 23.50 hours, the complainant came to the premises of Maharaja Bar and Restaurant, situated at Paradise Circle, Secunderabad, and observed that the management of the said Bar and Restaurant was organizing obscene dancing in the guise of orchestra. It is also specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that 13 women were there in the bar and they were singing and performing obscene dance by exposing their bodies to attract the male customers for money. They were arrested and remanded to judicial custody and subsequently released on the same day. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.2355 of 2008, dated 12.3.2010, and also the judgment rendered by another learned single Judge of this Court in Crl.P.No.4377 of 2005, dated 30.9.2005, and submits that unless the essential ingredients of Section 294 IPC are attracted showing that there is public annoyance or causing annoyance to others, the petitioners are not liable for prosecution for the offences alleged against them. 5. A perusal of the said judgments reveals that the facts of the present case and facts of those two cases are different from each other. Further, there is a specific mention in the charge sheet that the women were singing and performing obscene dancing by exposing their bodies to attract the male customers for money. 6. While exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot go into the aspect of evaluating the evidence which would be let in by either of the parties at the time of trial. Only when the action of the respondent, prima facie, is illegal and on false grounds, the proceedings can be quashed. 7. In my considered view, unless the evidence is let in as regards the commission of offence it is not possible to arrive at a decision whether the provisions of Section 294 IPC, are attracted or not. At the same time, it is quite premature to view in the face of the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet that the offence under Section 294 IPC is not at all attracted. There are no merits in this criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO SEPTEMBER 06, 2010. YVL