Karnataka High Court
Javarayi Gowda M vs State By Ccb Police on 28 April, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:17515
CRL.P No. 3382 of 2025
C/W WP No. 7150 of 2025
WP No. 7157 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3382 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 7150 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 7157 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
IN CRL.P No. 3382/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. DINESH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O LATE BHASKAR SHETTY,
R/O NO.16-126(1A),
HUDKO COLONY, MANIPAL,
UDUPI-576 104.
Digitally signed (SHOWN AS OWNER OF DAWAT BAR and
by R
HEMALATHA
RESTAURANT IN FIR)
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 2. SRI G SATHISH,
S/O SRI GOVINDA MULYA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O KONTU PALKE HOUSE,
KUVETTU, DAKSHINA KANNADA 574 217.
(SHOWN AS MANAGER OF
DAWAT BAR AND RESTAURANT).
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:17515
CRL.P No. 3382 of 2025
C/W WP No. 7150 of 2025
WP No. 7157 of 2025
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH
BENGALURU CITY POLICE STATION
BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
(RAJU G.C.)
CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH,
WOMEN PROTECTION WING,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIME BEARING NO.15/2025
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 CCB BENGALURU
CITY POLICE STATION IN FURTHERANCE TO INFORMATION
DATED 28.02.2025 WHEREIN THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE
HAD ARRAIGNED THE PETITIONER AS ACCUSED FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 296 AND 79 OF BNS R/W SECTION
31, 92(O), 103, 104 AND 105 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE
ACT, 1963 R/W SECTION 4 OF THE CIGARETTES AND OTHER
TOBACCO PRODUCTS ACT (COTPA) AND SECTION 4 OF THE
INDECENT REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN PROHIBITION ACT
(ANNEXURE A), PENDING ON THE BEFORE THE HON'BLE
COURT OF 1ST ADDL.CMM COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU CITY.
IN WP NO. 7150/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. ARJUN KUMAR P V
S/O VENKATARAMA REDDY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:17515
CRL.P No. 3382 of 2025
C/W WP No. 7150 of 2025
WP No. 7157 of 2025
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT NO.103, 1ST FLOOR
BHAGINI REGENCY, PWD ROAD
ANUGRAHA LAYOUT
B NARAYANAPURA
BENGALURU-560016.
2. MR. MOHAMMED YASEEN AHMED
S/O M NISAR AHMED
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
GPA HOLDER OF ZAFFERULLA KHAN,
R/AT NO.105, HOUSE OF LORDS,
ST. MARKS ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. ASHOK KUMAR
S/O BALAKRISHNA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NO.3-53, CHATEKOLI, HALAGERI,
KAMBADAKONE POST,
UDUPI-576219.
4. MANJEGOWDA H G,
S/O GANGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT LALANKERE,
BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI,
HADENAHALLI POST,
MANDYA-571802.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY CCB POLICE
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. CHANDRAPPA BARKI
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
POLICE OFFICER, CCB WOMEN PROTECTION WING,
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:17515
CRL.P No. 3382 of 2025
C/W WP No. 7150 of 2025
WP No. 7157 of 2025
SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIME IN FIR NO.13/2025
DATED 03.03.2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 104, 103, 105, 31 OF THE KARNATAKA
POLICE ACT, 1963 UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE CIGARETTES
AND OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS ACT, 2003, UNDER
SECTION 4 OF THE INDECENT REPRESENTATION OF
WOMEN (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1986 AND UNDER SECTION
296, 79 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 FILED
BY THE RESPONDENTS PENDING ON THE FILED OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL CMM COURT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE -A
AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 7157/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. JAVARAYI GOWDA M
S/O MAYIGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
NO.14, 3RD MAIN ROAD,
SHANKARNAGAR,
BENGALURU NORTH-560 096.
2. ARJUN KUMAR P V
S/O VENKATARAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
103, 1ST FLOOR,
BHAGINI REGENCY,
ANUGRAHA LAYOUT,
B NARAYANAPURA,
DOORAVANINAGAR,
BENGALURU NORTH-560 016.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:17515
CRL.P No. 3382 of 2025
C/W WP No. 7150 of 2025
WP No. 7157 of 2025
3. S G SURESH KUMAR
S/O GOPALA KRISHNAIAH SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
NO.405, 7TH MAIN ROAD,
JAYANAGAR 2ND BLOCK,
BANGALORE-560 011.
4. R VASANTH KUMAR
S/O RAJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RAMENAHALLI VILLAGE,
HOLENARASIPURA TALUKU,
GUBBI,
HASSAN-573 102.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY CCB POLICE
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. RAJA G C
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
POLICE OFFICER,
CCB WOMEN PROTECTION WING,
SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIME IN FIR NO.14/2025,
DATED 3.03.2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:17515
CRL.P No. 3382 of 2025
C/W WP No. 7150 of 2025
WP No. 7157 of 2025
SECTION 104, 103, 105, 31, 92 (O) OF THE KARNATAKA
POLICE ACT, 1963 UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE CIGARETTES
AND OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS, ACT 2003, UNDER
SECTION 4 OF THE INDECENT REPRESENTATION OF
WOMEN (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1986 AND UNDER SECTION
296, 79 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 FILED
BY THE RESPONDENTS PENDING ON THE FILED OF THE 1ST
ADDITIONAL CMM COURT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE -A
AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
Since the issues involved in these petitions are similar, and the allegations are of a similar nature, they have been clubbed together, heard jointly, and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners are proprietors of Bar and Restaurant establishments and have approached this Court challenging the registration of an FIR for offences punishable under Sections 104, 103, 105, 31, and 92(O) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963; Section 4 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003; Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986; and Sections 296 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners seek quashing of the said FIR and other consequential reliefs.
3. The complaint, which gave rise to the FIR, was registered based on information received from the Assistant Commissioner, Women's Cell (CCB), and the Commissioner of -7- NC: 2025:KHC:17515 CRL.P No. 3382 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7150 of 2025 WP No. 7157 of 2025 Police. It was alleged that indecent dance performances were being conducted in the petitioners' establishments for the amusement of customers. Acting upon directions issued by their superior officers, the authorities called upon the petitioners to produce the Digital Video Recorder (DVR) footage. The FIR was subsequently registered, alleging that the petitioners had violated various licensing conditions prescribed under the Karnataka Excise Act, the Karnataka Police Act, and applicable labour laws. It was further alleged that the petitioners had brought in women from other states, dressed them in obscene clothing, made them perform dances in the middle of the bar under flashing colored lights and loud music, and used their gestures and seductive conduct to lure customers. It is also alleged that the petitioners collected extra money from customers through these women and were thereby engaging in illegal activities.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, even assuming the allegations made in the FIR to be true, the essential ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 296 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are not met. It was further contended that in the absence of any specific complaint by an individual claiming annoyance or harassment, the registration of the FIR based solely on DVR footage is impermissible and constitutes an abuse of the process of law. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.S. Madhanagopal & Another v. K. Lalitha, Criminal Appeal No. 1759/2022, disposed of on 10.10.2022.
-8-NC: 2025:KHC:17515 CRL.P No. 3382 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7150 of 2025 WP No. 7157 of 2025
5. In response, the learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, does not require that a specific person must be annoyed by the obscene act. The section criminalizes any obscene act performed in a public place, or the singing, reciting, or uttering of obscene songs or words in or near a public place. Reliance was placed on the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ameer Basha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 SCC OnLine AP 1154, and the decision of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Zafar Ahmad Khan v. State, 1962 SCC OnLine All 170.
6. It is further submitted that the offences under Sections 296 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are cognizable in nature. Section 296 penalizes individuals who perform obscene acts, or sing, recite, or utter obscene songs, ballads, or words in or near any public place, to the annoyance of others. The punishment prescribed includes imprisonment for a term of up to three months, or a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both.
7. A plain reading of Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, reveals that in order to constitute an offence under this provision, the act must involve an obscene gesture or utterance performed in a public place, and must cause annoyance to others.
8. In the case of N.S. Madhanagopal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that mere utterance -9- NC: 2025:KHC:17515 CRL.P No. 3382 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7150 of 2025 WP No. 7157 of 2025 of obscene words is insufficient to constitute an offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. There must also be evidence that the words or acts caused annoyance to others. In that case, the Court noted the absence of any witness or evidence establishing that the alleged acts caused annoyance, and therefore concluded that the essential ingredients of the offence were not met. The same principle is applicable to Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which is in pari materia with Section 294 IPC.
9. Therefore, the decision in Ameer Basha (supra) cannot be relied upon, as it did not correctly interpret the statutory requirement of annoyance as an essential component of the offence. Without evidence of actual annoyance to a third party, the mere allegation of an obscene act cannot sustain prosecution under Section 296 BNS.
10. Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, provides that any person who, with the intention of insulting the modesty of a woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object intending that such word, sound, gesture, or object be seen or heard by such woman, or who intrudes upon her privacy, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term extending up to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 183(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, stipulates that in offences under Section 79, the Magistrate must record the statement of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17515 CRL.P No. 3382 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7150 of 2025 WP No. 7157 of 2025 committed, in the manner prescribed under sub-section (5), as soon as the matter is brought to the notice of the police.
11. In the present case, there is no material on record to indicate that the statement of any such woman--against whom the offence under Section 79 is alleged--was recorded in accordance with Section 183(6) of BNSS. Moreover, even the contents of the FIR do not support the ingredients of the offence under Section 79. There is no specific allegation that the petitioners acted with the intention of insulting the modesty of any woman, nor is there any mention of words, sounds, gestures, or objects being directed at any particular woman with such intent. The FIR also does not allege any intrusion into the privacy of a specific woman.
12. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 28448/2023 by order dated 19.12.2023, while referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, (2008) 3 SCC 1, directed the respondent police not to interfere with or obstruct the functioning of the petitioner's establishments merely on the ground that they had employed women.
13. This Court, at this stage, refrains from delving into the allegations in relation to other offences under the Karnataka Police Act and Tobacco Products Act, 2003, as those offences are non-cognizable in nature. As such, before undertaking any investigation, the police ought to have obtained prior permission from the Magistrate under Section
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17515 CRL.P No. 3382 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7150 of 2025 WP No. 7157 of 2025 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The corresponding provision under the BNSS is Section 174 , which has not been complied with. In such circumstances, the continuation of the investigation amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
14. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed.
15. The impugned FIR in Crime No.14/2025, Crime No.13/2025, and Crime No.15/2025 registered by the CCB Police insofar it relates to the petitioners herein is hereby quashed in all these petitions.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 194