Allahabad HC: Employees of Constituent Institutions are not Entitled to Central University Benefits  ||  Calcutta High Court: Juvenile Accused Eligible to Apply for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 CrPC  ||  J&K & L HC: Departmental Proceedings Not Halted by Pending Criminal Case Without Showing Prejudice  ||  Cal HC: CESTAT Appeals Abate After Resolution Plan Success; CENVAT Reversal Requires No Pre-Deposit  ||  Bom HC: SEBI Settlement Doesn’t Protect Accused from Criminal Liability in Serious Economic Offences  ||  SC Directs States to Notify Eco-Sensitive Zones Around Tiger Reserves and Regulate Tiger Safaris  ||  SC: Its 2024 Order Letting Union Review Benami Act Cases Based on 'Ganpati Dealcom' was Incorrect  ||  SC: Rejection of Income Tax Settlement Application Doesn’t Bar Assessee from Contesting Assessment  ||  SC Informed Accessibility Facilities for Visually Impaired Candidates in AIBE and CLAT Expected Soon  ||  Supreme Court: Pendency of Writ Proceedings Does Not Bar Availing Alternative Statutory Remedies    

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