SC: App. Seeking Permission for Public Gatherings During Lok Sabha Elections to be Decided in 3 Days  ||  SC: Case to Proceed as Pvt. Complaint if Cognizance of Additional Materials Taken With Protest Petiti  ||  SC: Investigating Officer Must Narrate Statement of Accused to Prove Disclosure Statement  ||  SC: Rs. 5 Lakh Cost Imposed on Wife’s Father for Lodging Fake Cases at Diff. Places Against Husband  ||  8 Weeks Time Given to UP Govt. to Consider Need for Guidelines on Invocation of Gangsters Act  ||  SC: Writ Petitions Should be Dismissed by HCs if Petitioner Guilty of Delay or Laches  ||  Del. HC Directs Dept. to Remove Demands From ITBA Portal as it Fails to Comply with ITAT's Order  ||  Cal. HC: To Prevent Arbitral Awards from Becoming Meaningless They Should be Made Real  ||  Raj HC: Cognizance Can be Taken by Sessions Court Against Accused Who Haven’t Yet Been Chargesheeted  ||  SC: In Absence of Special Court for UAPA Cases, Sessions Court Will Have Jurisdiction to Try them    

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

Obscene acts in private place not a ‘public offence’



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


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved