Kerala HC: Applications under the Muslim Women’s Divorce Act Have a 3-Year Limitation Period  ||  Supreme Court: Property Transferred Before Filing a Suit Cannot be Attached under Order 38 Rule 5  ||  Supreme Court: No Review or Appeal is Maintainable Against an Order Appointing an Arbitrator  ||  SC: Terminated Contract is Not a Corporate Debtor’s Asset and a Moratorium Cannot Revive it  ||  SC: Cheque Dishonour Complaints Must be Filed at the Payee’s Home Branch under S.142(2)(A)  ||  Supreme Court: Bail Cannot be Granted Solely on Parity; Accused’s Specific Role Must be Assessed  ||  Kerala HC Upholds Life Terms For Five, Acquits Two in Renjith Johnson Murder, Says TIP Not Needed  ||  Kerala HC Orders Emergency Electric Fencing at Tribal School to Address Rising Wildlife Conflict  ||  Madras HC: Arbitrator Can’t Pierce Corporate Veil to Bind Non-Signatory and Partly Sets Aside Award  ||  Calcutta HC: Post-Award Claim For Municipal Tax Reimbursement is Not Maintainable under Section 9    

Amardeep Singh Chudha v. State of Maharashtra - (High Court of Bombay) (10 Mar 2016)

Obscene acts in private place not a ‘public offence’

MANU/MH/0353/2016

Criminal

Obscene activities in private place not causing disturbance or disruption to others cannot be taken cognisance of by police under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code. The court reiterated that Section 294, pertaining to ‘obscene acts and songs’, required the same be performed in a place meant for the public at large - which a locked apartment was not. Though it did not express opinion on the ongoing activity in the flat itself, scantily clad women dancing for a male audience, the court added that music in the flat was not alleged to have caused annoyance to neighbours. The FIR lodged against 13 men was quashed.

Relevant : State of Harayana and others V/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. MANU/SC/0115/1992

Tags : OBSCENE ACT   PRIVATE PLACE   COGNISANCE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved