The Bombay High Court has held that merely shouting loudly at each other on a public street, without any other specific allegation, does not make out a cognizable offence under Section 85(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. The Court observed that apart from the allegation that the accused were shouting at each other loudly, there was no allegation of obscenity, depravity or moral offensiveness.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav was hearing an application filed by two accused persons seeking quashing of FIR registered with Pimpri Police Station under Section 85(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The allegation in the FIR and chargesheet was that, under the influence of alcohol, the applicants were shouting loudly at each other on a public street, thus resulting in breach of public peace and disturbance to the public at large.

The Court noted that it was not the prosecution's case that the applicants had shouted at any third party or disturbed public peace. It held that, on a bare reading of the charges, no cognizable offence was made out.

“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,” the Court remarked.

The Court further observed that consumption of alcohol by itself could not constitute an offence under Section 85, and that improperly and disorderly behaviour had to be culled out from the facts of each case.

The Court also referred to the High Court's power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, noting that 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.

The Court also made several observations on consent quashing, noting that imposition of cost is warranted in such matters because of wastage of public resources, consumption of valuable judicial time, and for deterrence against vexatious litigation.

“… ultimately if consent quashing is allowed such judicial time stands completely wasted, which could have otherwise been used for genuine Trial Court matters/ litigation. in one way such matters result in clogging the legal system and lead to humongous pendency which becomes difficult to tackle,” the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the application and quashed and set aside FIR, while directing the applicants to pay costs of ₹10,000.

Case Title: Lakhan Lalchand Dhamwani v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Application No. 1489 of 2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order