Loud Shouting Between Two Persons on Street Doesn't Make Out Cognizable Offence

Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav, in Lakhan Lalchand Dhamwani v. State of Maharashtra (2026), quashed an FIR registered under Section 85(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, holding that loud shouting between two persons on a public street, without more, does not disclose a cognizable offence. 

What was the Background of Lakhan Lalchand Dhamwani v. State of Maharashtra (2026) Case? 

• An FIR was registered against the applicants with Pimpri Police Station under Section 85(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. 
• 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, resulting in breach of public peace and disturbance to the public at large. 
• The applicants approached the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Absence of Disturbance to Third Parties: The Court noted that it was not the prosecution's case that the applicants had shouted at any third party or disturbed public peace and held that on a bare reading of the charges, no cognizable offence was made out. 
• On the Scope of Section 85 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act: The Court observed that consumption of alcohol by itself could not constitute an offence under Section 85, and that improper and disorderly behaviour had to be culled out from the facts of each case; here, apart from the allegation of loud shouting, there was no allegation of obscenity, depravity, or moral offensiveness. 
• On the High Court's Power Under Section 528 BNSS: The Court referred to its 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, thereby avoiding procedural harassment. 
• On Imposition of Costs in Consent Quashing Matters: The Court observed that imposition of costs is warranted in consent quashing matters because of the wastage of public resources, consumption of valuable judicial time, and the need for deterrence against vexatious litigation, remarking that allowing such matters to proceed to trial would clog the legal system and add to pendency. 
• Allowing the application, the Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the FIR, directing the applicants to pay costs of ₹10,000. 

What is Section 528 of the BNSS? 

Corresponding Old Provision: Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 

Bare Act Text: 

Saving of inherent powers of High Court. — Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

What is Cognizable Offence? 

Definition: 

• A cognizable offence is a serious crime where a police officer can arrest the accused without a warrant and begin investigation without prior court permission. 

Statutory Definition — Section 2(g), BNSS: 

• "Cognizable offence" means an offence for which, and "cognizable case" means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant. 

Key Features: 

• No Warrant Needed: Police can arrest a suspect directly based on reasonable suspicion. 
• No Court Permission Required: Officers can start investigating the matter immediately. 
• Mandatory FIR: Police must register an FIR upon receiving information about such offences. 

Common Examples: 

• Murder 
• Rape 
• Kidnapping 
• Dowry death