Two people shouting loudly at each other after consuming alcohol did not disclose the disorderly conduct required by Section 85(1) of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, the Bombay High Court held.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav quashed FIR No. 210 of 2023 from Pimpri Police Station, subject to the applicants paying ₹10,000 to a charitable organisation within two weeks.
“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.”
— Para 5
Why it matters. Section 85 does not criminalise volume alone. The prosecution must point to conduct that crosses into the statutory form of improper or disorderly behaviour; an allegation that two accused shouted at one another cannot substitute for facts showing obscenity, indecency or disturbance directed at the public.
Noise was not disorder
The charge-sheet alleged that Lakhan Lalchand Dhamwani and the second applicant were under the influence of alcohol and shouting at each other on a street, causing breach of peace. The prosecution did not allege that either man shouted at a third party.
The court found no specified obscenity, depravity or moral offensiveness. Relying on the Nagpur Bench decision in Mahesh Sitaram Mankari v. State of Maharashtra, it distinguished mere loudness from behaviour that is lawless, confused or defiant of decency. On the allegations as filed, no cognisable offence emerged.
The application invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court explained that this provision carries forward the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.
Why consent quashing carries costs
The judgment then addressed a broader practice point. Where parties set criminal machinery in motion and later seek quashing by consent in a private, non-heinous dispute, courts may impose costs for police resources, judicial time and deterrence against strategically exaggerated complaints.
Here, the applicants’ conduct had prompted the proceedings, and both sides sought closure. The applicants agreed in court to pay the amount.
The judgement
The application was allowed in terms of the prayer to quash FIR No. 210 of 2023. The applicants must deposit ₹10,000 with Anand Mangal Bahuuddeshiya Sanstha within two weeks of upload. Compliance is listed for 15 September 2026; failure to appear and prove payment may lead to recall of the order.
The application was allowed and disposed of on those terms.
“It is not the case of the prosecution that both the Applicants had shouted at any third party or disturbing public peace.”
— Para 4
“Courts cannot be used as a recovery mechanism to settle scores and/or bring the parties into subjugation.”
— Para 10
“This Court is also equally conscious about not imposing costs blindly or mechanically if a particular party is not found to be remiss or at explicit fault for abusing the law, as also conscious about heinous offences impacting the society at large while considering consent quashing.”
— Para 11