[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL W.P.NO.2245 OF 2008 Mahendra Chandrakant Mhatre ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents ... Mr.O.R.Tiwari advocate for Petitioner Mr.A.S.Shitole A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The learned advocate for the petitioner states that at present he is not pressing prayer clauses (b) and (e) of the petition and he seeks liberty to file appropriate proceedings in respect of the said prayers before appropriate forum. Liberty as prayed for, is granted. Thus, this petition is being considered in respect of action taken against the petitioner under Section 110 of the Bombay Police Act. [-2-] 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner states that Section 110 of the Bombay Police Act would not be applicable to the action of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner came to the Malwani Police Station and started arguing with the A.P.I. Mr.Chavan on duty and he enquired with A.P.I. Chavan as to what authority he had to stop the work of refilling and what authority the police had to bring these persons to the police station. At that time, the petitioner started shouting loudly and threatened the police officers. Though he was requested to behave in a proper manner, he used insulting language and indulged in disorderly behaviour. Station Diary in respect of the same came to be made and thereafter, charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner before the Special Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (Morning Court) Borivali. The said case is numbered as CC No. 24726 of 2006. 4. Section 110 of Bombay Police Act, deals with cases wherein there is indecent exposure of any person and it also deals with a person who uses indecent language or behaves indecently or [-3-] riotously or in disorderly manner in a street or place of public resort or in any office, station or station house. This clearly shows that Section 110 deals with two different kind of cases, firstly it deals with cases where the person willfully and indecently exposes himself and secondly it deals with indecent or riotous behaviour or behaviour in a disorderly manner. The act of petitioner would not fall in first part, however, it would be covered by the second part of the Section as the petitioner has behaved in riotous manner in the police station and he has behaved in a disorderly manner and used improper language. Hence, no case is made out for quashing of the said case. 5. Petition is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]