In a significant legal development of Mitesh Ramesh Punmiya v/s The State of Maharashtra, Through Senior Police Inspector, Nagpada Police Station, the petitioner successfully challenged criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 61271/PS/2016, which were pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Mazgaon, Mumbai. This case stemmed from C.R. No. 66 of 2016, registered on February 19, 2016, at the Nagpada Police Station, involving charges under Sections 294 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 131(aa) of the Maharashtra Police Act.

The prosecution's case revolves around an incident that occurred on February 18, 2016, when the informant, Police Constable Mahesh Arun Choure, was conducting surveillance. Acting on secret information, he and a raiding party visited the Sea Princess Bar and Restaurant, where they allegedly observed inappropriate activities. Reports indicated that women were dancing in an obscene manner while customers threw money at them, encouraging further explicit gestures. The petitioner was identified as one of the patrons present during this incident.

Following the filing of the First Information Report (FIR), the petitioner sought to quash the proceedings. On September 6, 2023, the court admitted the petition and stayed the trial proceedings. The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Rutuj Warick, argued that mere presence at the location of alleged obscene acts did not warrant prosecution under the cited sections of the I.P.C. He referenced a precedent case, Mr. Rushabh Minishkumar Mehta vs. The State of Maharashtra, emphasizing that being a spectator does not equate to abetting a crime.

Conversely, the State’s representative, Mr. Vinod Chate, contended that the FIR specifically implicated the petitioner as someone who encouraged the dancing women, thereby participating in the alleged offenses. He cited statements from the police raiding party that reiterated this claim.

Upon reviewing the arguments and relevant legal provisions, the court considered Sections 294 and 114 of the I.P.C. Section 294 penalizes obscene acts in public, while Section 114 addresses abetment in the presence of the accused. The court noted that, to invoke these sections, the accused must have actively engaged in obscene acts or encouraged such acts through explicit actions.

The court found no substantive evidence indicating that the petitioner engaged in any obscene behavior or actively encouraged it. The generalized statements about patrons enjoying the performances were insufficient to establish a direct link to the charges. Referencing previous judgments, including Manish Parshottam Rughwani vs. The State of Maharashtra, the court reaffirmed that mere presence in a bar during an incident does not constitute grounds for prosecution without demonstrable overt acts.

The court ultimately concluded that no offense was substantiated against the petitioner. As a result, the petition was granted, and the criminal proceedings were quashed, setting a notable precedent regarding the implications of being a mere observer in situations involving alleged public obscenity. This decision reinforces the principle that not all instances of presence in questionable circumstances warrant legal repercussions, particularly without clear evidence of involvement in the alleged crimes.