Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction  ||  Delhi High Court: Software Receipts Not Taxable on PE Basis Already Rejected by ITAT  ||  Delhi High Court: Statutory Appeals Cannot Be Denied Due to DRAT Vacancies or Administrative Delays  ||  J&K&L HC: Failure to Frame Limitation Issue Not Fatal; Courts May Examine Limitation Suo Motu  ||  Bombay HC: Preventing Feeding Stray Dogs at Society or Bus Stop is Not 'Wrongful Restraint'  ||  Gujarat HC: Not All Injuries Reduce Earning Capacity; Functional Disability Must Be Assessed  ||  Delhi HC: Framing of Charges is Interlocutory and Not Appealable under Section 21 of NIA Act    

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