Lakhan Lalchand Dhamwani & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

2026:BHC-AS:36233

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1489 OF 2026

Lakhan Lalchand Dhamwani & Anr. .. Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents

Mr. Shailesh S. Kharat, Advocate for Applicants
Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for State
Ms. Madhumati Shinde, API, Pimpri Police Station

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : AUGUST 31, 2026

[NyayVidhan note: this is the corrected order, uploaded with the footer 'This is the Corrected order as per speaking to the minutes order dated 02.09.2026.' (2026:BHC-AS:36233). The 02.09.2026 order deleted paragraphs 9-11 of the original order of 31.08.2026 (2026:BHC-AS:35707), which had wrongly recorded that the application was allowed by consent, and renumbered the rest; it is appended at the end. Footnotes 1-2 are marked [n] and collected at the end. The charity's bank account number and mobile number are masked to the last four digits. The Court's slips (e.g. 'Harayana', 'Mumbai Prohibition Act, 1998' in the quoted prayer, the stray closing quote in paragraph 9) are kept as printed.]

P. C. :

1. Heard Mr. Kharat, learned Advocate for Applicants and Ms. Phad, learned APP for State.

2. Present Application is filed under the provisions of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") seeking quashing and setting aside of FIR bearing No. 210 of 2023 registered with Pimpri Police Station for offence punishable under Section 85(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short "said Act").

3. There are two Applicants before me who are arraigned as accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the present case. Allegation in the FIR and the chargesheet which has now been filed is that under the influence of alcohol they were both shouting on each other loudly on the public street and therefore complaint alleged breach of public peace and disturbance to the public at large.

4. It is not the case of the prosecution that both the Applicants had shouted at any third party or disturbing public peace. Prima facie, on bare reading of the charges, I am of the clear opinion that no cognizable offences are made out and therefore interference of this Court is necessary.

5. One of the Applicant incidentally happened to be a person pursuing law studies. Apart from the fact that they were shouting loudly, there was no other specific allegation against the accused persons. Undoubtedly, consumption of alcohol cannot be an offence under Section 85 of the said Act but in order to invoke the said provision, improperly and disorderly behaviour is required to be culled out from the facts of each case. Save and except the prima facie case of both the Applicants shouting at each other, there is no charge of the prosecution of any element of obscenity, depravity or moral offensiveness as required by the regulation and the extant provisions of Section 85 of the said Act.

6. Mr. Kharat would persuade me to consider that mere volume cannot be equated to be in violation of decency which is apparently the act in the present case. He has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Nagpur Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh Sitaram Mankari & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra[1] wherein this Court had ascribed and considered the dictionary meaning of the term, inter alia, pertaining to "disorderly behaviour in society" to mean behaviour which is completely out of order, in confusion, irregular, lawless, defying the restrains of decency. That not having been seen in the facts of the present case and case of the prosecution hinges only on the issue of loud shouting or causing disturbance of peace, I am inclined to accept the submissions made by Mr. Kharat and allow the present Application.

7. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 conferred inherent powers on High Courts to pass such orders as are justified to give effect to any order in the Court, prevent abuse of process of any Court or secure the ends of justice. In the BNSS this provision stands incorporated with Section 528 which substantially reproduces the language and intent of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.1973 High Courts invoke this provision to step in where cases have been instituted with malafide motives or to harass the accused person thereby avoiding procedural harassment. It empowers Court to dismiss FIRs or criminal proceedings if there is no prima facie case or evidence against the accused person/s or if orders are made in violation of the principles of natural justice. The exercise of such powers under Section 482 of CRPC and now Section 528 of BNSS remains discretionary and varies from case to case.

8. In State of Harayana vs Bhajan Lal[2] the Supreme Court laid down model categories and guidelines in paragraph No. 102 of the said judgment in which the FIRs can be quashed. The Supreme Court has furthered asserted that power under Section 482 is an acknowledgment of "powers inherent" and not the source of powers additional. It has held that even non compoundable offences can be quashed where necessary. It has held that High Courts have to decide whether the prosecution of an offence would further or be against the interest of justice. It is also held that grievous offences such as murder, rape, and dacoity cannot ordinarily be quashed even after settlement because they involve societal implication.

9. I am of the opinion that the Applicants for their actions in a public place to the extent of causing nuisance due to their loud shouting resulting in the complainant invoking criminal proceedings, the Applicants should pay costs. Applicants are directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order. Applicants are present in Court and through their learned Advocate agree to pay the aforesaid costs amount to the charity".

10. I direct payment of costs to Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, registered NGO and Trust situated at Malegaon working at the grassroots level towards social welfare, holistic upliftment, sustainable community development of destitutes, marginalized women, elderly persons by providing them shelter, dignity, daytime care services, medical care, promoting women empowerment by livelihood training and practical vocational skill training programs in rural and urban areas, supports skill development and health care access and emergency relief for vulnerable community groups and at present providing complete shelter, nutritious meals and complete healthcare to 28 destitute seniors and 6 individuals with intellectual disabilities at their Malegaon Headquarters. The details of this Sanstha for payment of costs are as under:- Name of Bank: Bank Of Maharashtra Account Number: [masked, ending 1304] IFSC Code: MAHB0002075 MICR Code: 423014102 Registered Name: Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha, Malegaon. Registration No.: MAHA/2909/Nashik | F-15352 / Nashik, Office Address: S.No. 39/2/4D/41/1, Plot No.13, Near Panchaganga Auto Showroom, Malegaon, Dist. Nashik, Maharashtra, Mobile No.: [masked, ending 5304].

11. In view of the above matter, the present Application deserves to be allowed subject to payment of costs as directed herein above. It is so allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which read thus:- “a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside FIR bearing No 210 of 2023 registered at the instance of Pimpri Police Station for offence punishable under Section 85(1) of Mumbai Prohibition Act, 1998, on such terms and conditions this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

12. List the Application for compliance of the order regarding payment of costs on 15.09.2026.

13. Advocate for Applicants shall remain present and show compliance on behalf of Applicants on the returnable date for compliance. If he does not remain present and there is non-compliance of this order, Court will pass appropriate order for recall of this order, which shall be noted by the Applicant.

14. Application is allowed and disposed.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Footnotes:
[1] Judgment dated 09.02.2026 in Criminal Application No. 151 of 2021
[2] 1992 AIR 604

Order of 02.09.2026 (speaking to the minutes), as printed:

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 2, 2026

P. C.:

(1) Not on board. Mentioned by way of filing a praecipe dated 02.09.2026 for speaking to the minutes of order dated 31.08.2026.

(2) Heard Mr. Kharat, learned Advocate appearing for the Applicants. He would submit that though the present Application was allowed and disposed of on merits, inadvertently, the order records that the Application was allowed by consent.

(3) I agree with the submissions made by Mr. Kharat. In view thereof, paragraph Nos. 9, 10, 11 of the said order stands deleted. Paragraph No. 12 is altered and renumbered as paragraph No. 9 as under:- [the new paragraph 9 is set out above in the corrected order]

(4) Further paragraph Nos. 13 to 17 of the order be renumbered as 10 to 14.

(5) Above corrections be carried out in the order dated 31.08.2026 and corrected order be uploaded again. The rest of the order remains undisturbed.

(6) Praecipe is disposed.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

[NyayVidhan note: the paragraph numbers of the 02.09.2026 order are shown in brackets so that they are not read as paragraphs of the main order.]