1 criap-1795.05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1795 OF 2005 1. Suresh s/o Nanappa Mancherial, age 46 years, occup. business, r/of 33,J.S.Vila Sangeet Colony, Cantonment, Aurangabad. 2. Biwi alias Bibi alias Baby Mohammed Ali Naz, age 38 years, 3. Nilofar Shaikh Hussain alias Hussain Khan, age 24 years, 4. Manju Vishwanath Pramanik, age 33 years, 5. Kamla Deepak Gupta, age 34 years, 6. Kiran Suresh Mishra, age 25 years, 7. Kiran Vijay Bape, age 35 years, 8. Sundari Soni Bahadur, age 25 years, 9. Rajiya Imani alias Isani Ismail, age 38 years, All r/of Nayanagar, in rented House (Wada) of Latif Patel, Garkheda, Aurangabad. 10. Tushar Rajendra Rajput, age 22 years, occupation: Manager, r/of Nayanagar, Shete Niwas, Garkheda, Aurangabad. 11. Nithin Haridas Rathod, age 24 years, occupation: Waiter, r/of HUDCO, N-9, Sant Dnyaneshwar Nagar, 96/3, Aurangabad. 2 criap-1795.05 12. Santosh Kaduba Kharat, age 22 years, occupation: Education, r/o Chausarnagar, Jyoti Nagar, Darga Road, Aurangabad. 13. Rajendra Namdeo Thorat, age 36 years, occup. Waiter, r/of Kabra Nagar, Garkheda, Aurangabad. 14. Paul Vergeese Kanhendra, age 26 years, occupation: Store-keeper, r/of Fazal Complex, Vishal Nagar, Aurangabad. Petitioners versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad. Respondents ------ Shri R.R. Mantri, Advocate, for the Petitioners. Shri V.D. Godbharle, A.P.P. for Resp. Nos. 1 & 2. Coram: A.H.Joshi and A.M.Thipsay, JJ. Date : November 9, 2011. Judgment (Per: A.H. Joshi, J.) 1. This is a Criminal Application for quashing the F.I.R. The narration of commission of offence described in FIR in summary is as follows:- 3 criap-1795.05 When "Hotel Aishwarya" situated in Garkheda Area, Aurangabad was raided on 9.7.2005 at about 19.50 hours, 8 women with scanty clothes and exhibiting obscene gestures were found dancing on the tune of music and attempting to touch the body of the customers in the hotel. Many of the customers, who were dancing and consuming drink, ran away from the premises. 2. By this application for quashing of FIR, the petitioners had put forward following points:- (i) Accepting each statement and version contained in the FIR to be gospel truth, (a) The offence under Section 294 of IPC is not even described. (b) The offence either under Section 3 or under Sections 5 and 8 of the Immoral Traffic(Prevention) Act,1956 too is not described. (ii) The offence under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, is to be lodged, investigated etc. by Special Police Officer appointed under the said Act, but no such 'Special Police Officer' was involved at any stage of the investigation. 3. Though the case has led to filing of charge- sheet, learned Advocate for the petitioners has argued in support of quashing of the FIR, inasmuch as, 4 criap-1795.05 according to him, the challenge can be sustained barely on perusal of the FIR and hence, all further actions would be vitiated. 4. Since this court had entertained the petition and granted relief even after filing of the charge- sheet, we had benefit of reading the charge-sheet, copy whereof was tendered by learned APP. 5. Heard. Perused the FIR. 6. It reveals that the FIR is lodged by a Police Officer, who is not notified or appointed as Special Police Officer as required under Section 13 (1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. 7. The contents of the FIR do not disclose as to the obscene acts, allegedly done by accused persons at the public place and as to whether the obscene acts had annoyed the viewers. 8. In view of these material defficiencies, the FIR falls short of the description of the offence required for taking cognizance thereof. 5 criap-1795.05 9. After perusal of the charge-sheet, normally we would have have directed the petitioners to go before trial court for discharge. We, however, find that the imputations contained in the charge-sheet, also do not contain the description of alleged obscenity, so also the charge-sheet is filed by a Police Officer of the Mukundwadi Police Officer, and not by an officer specially notified by Special Police Officer appointed under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The FIR was not lodged by Special Officer. 10. Moreover, the ingredients of Section 294 of IPC are not described either in the FIR, or in the charge-sheet. It would, therefore, be a fit case to quash the charge-sheet. 11. Learned Advocate for the petitioners, has relied on judgment in the case of Narendra H. Khurana vs. The Commissioner of Police, 2004 CRi.L.J. 3393, in support of his submission that in the absence of express evidence of annoyance by any of persons who attended cabaret dances where indecent and obscene acts were allegedly done. 6 criap-1795.05 It would have been useful to discuss the said judgment which we find, favours the petitioners. However, since no intricate questions are involved in this case, and as the facts are obvious and plain as disclosed from the record, we consider that it would not be necessary to discuss the judgment relied upon by learned Advocate for the Petitioners. 12. In the result, petition succeeds. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). (A.M. THIPSAY, J.) (A.H. JOSHI, J.) pnd/criap-1795-05