17.WP.6649.2025.doc Ajay IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6649 OF 2025 Rakesh Shashikant Patel .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent ....................  Mr. Prashant Vasudeo Malik, Advocate for Petitioner.  Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent – State.  PSI – Mr. Umesh More, Andheri Police Station present. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Malik, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Ms. Talhar, learned APP for Respondent – State. 2. This Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagaarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quash and set aside of C.R. No.438 of 2012 dated 29.12.2012 registered with Andheri Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 294 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 4 and 12 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003; Section 33(w) and 135 of the Mumbai Police Act; Section 65(e), 81 and 83 of the Mumbai Prohibition Act, 1949 and Section 394 and 471 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1988. 1 of 3 17.WP.6649.2025.doc 3. Prima facie, it is seen that the Petitioner before me was a customer who was one of the 10 customers who were having their dinner alongwith alcohol and were smoking in the dance bar when they were rounded up by a raiding team at 01:11 a.m. in the night. The case of the prosecution emanating from the charge-sheet qua Petitioner before me is prima facie clear. He is neither the owner of the bar nor the establishment where the raid took place. Petitioner is an independent businessman who was in fact rounded up alongwith 9 other customers who were at that time present in the bar having their dinner alongwith alcohol. 4. The provisions of Section 294 and 34 of IPC and more specifically the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 would not apply to the Petitioner. No specific role or overt act is attributed to the present Petitioner as can be seen from the material on record. Even according to the prosecution case, it is seen that the Petitioner was a customer who had visited the hotel on the said night and 13 out of the 16 prosecution witnesses being the police personnel themselves, no case whatsoever is made out against the Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.11 in the present case. 2 of 3 17.WP.6649.2025.doc 5. I have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and also heard the learned Prosecutor with regard to her objections to the maintainability of the present Petition. 6. On going through the record of the case, it is prima facie seen that the provisions of the aforesaid Act are applicable, or would otherwise be applicable to the owner of the establishment and the person who was running the said restaurant beyond the permissible time limit. Insofar as the Petitioner, being a customer of the said restaurant is concerned, the said provisions would not be applicable. 7. In view of the above, Writ Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘b’ which reads thus:- “b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the order of taking cognizance and issuance of process dated 20th July, 2013, passed in C.C. No.1332/PS of 2013 pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Railway Mobile Court at Andheri arising out of C.R No.438 of 2012 registered with Andheri Police Station qua the Petitioner.” 8. In view of the above, Writ Petition is allowed and disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 3 of 3 AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.09.04 11:28:59 +0530