Justice Milind N. Jadhav, Bombay High Court
Mere Volume Not Disorderly Behaviour: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Two Men Accused Of Loud Shouting In Public Street
|The allegation in the FIR and chargesheet was that the two applicants, under the influence of alcohol, were shouting at each other loudly on a public street.
The Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside an FIR registered against two men under Section 85(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, observing that the allegation that they were shouting loudly at each other on a public street, while under the influence of alcohol, did not prima facie constitute a cognizable offence.
A Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav held, “It is not the case of the prosecution that both the Applicants had shouted at any third party or disturbing public peace. Prima facie, on bare reading of the charges, I am of the clear opinion that no cognizable offences are made out and therefore interference of this Court is necessary.”
Advocate Shailesh S. Kharat appeared for the petitioners and Advocate Sangeeta E. Phad appeared for the respondents.
The FIR was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The allegation in the FIR and chargesheet was that the two applicants, under the influence of alcohol, were shouting at each other loudly on a public street, resulting in an alleged breach of public peace and disturbance to the public at large.
The Court noted that it was not the prosecution's case that the applicants had shouted at any third party or were disturbing public peace. “Save and except the prima facie case of both the Applicants shouting at each other, there is no charge of the prosecution of any element of obscenity, depravity or moral offensiveness,” the Court observed.
The Court further observed that consumption of alcohol, by itself, cannot be an offence under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. To invoke the provision, “improperly and disorderly behaviour is required to be culled out from the facts of each case.”
The Court accepted the submission of the petitioner's advocate that mere volume could not be equated with violation of decency in the facts of the case.
The Court also referred to the decision in Mahesh Sitaram Mankari & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra, in which the Nagpur Bench had considered the meaning of disorderly behaviour in society as behaviour which is completely out of order, in confusion, irregular, lawless and defying the restraints of decency.
While quashing the FIR, however, the Court directed the applicants to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, a registered NGO and Trust situated at Malegaon, within two weeks from the date of uploading of the order.
The Court said that the applicants' actions had resulted in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings and that both parties were now seeking quashing by consent.
The order also elaborated on the Court's view regarding costs in consent-quashing matters. It said criminal law cannot be used as a bargaining chip or a tool for private settlements after draining State and judicial resources.
According to the Court, costs may be imposed to account for the wastage of public resources, consumption of valuable judicial time and deterrence against vexatious litigation. The Court noted that once criminal machinery is set into motion, the Police Department is required to take cognizance, conduct investigations, attend courts, deploy personnel, collect evidence and draft chargesheets, all using public funds.
The Court also observed that exaggerated criminal complaints may be filed strategically to force financial and legal settlements, while clarifying that costs should not be imposed blindly or mechanically where a party is not found to be remiss or at explicit fault for abusing the law.
The application was accordingly allowed and disposed of, subject to payment of the costs.
Cause Title: Lakhan Lalchand Dhamwani & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., [2026:BHC-AS:35707]