Bengaluru bar and restaurant operators prosecuted over alleged dance performances
CCB Bengaluru registered three FIRs against bar and restaurant operators over allegations of indecent dance performances at their venues. The High Court held that Section 296 BNS requires evidence of actual annoyance to others and that Section 79 requires intent directed at a particular woman. On 28 April 2025 the High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the three FIRs insofar as they concerned the petitioners.
This page records what the cited court records say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →FIRs quashed on 28 April 2025; no prosecution pending against these petitioners on these FIRs.
What happened
The High Court recorded that CCB Bengaluru registered Crime Nos. 15/2025, 13/2025 and 14/2025 against operators of licensed drinking-and-eating venues after information from the CCB Women's Cell and the Commissioner of Police. The allegations said women from other states were made to dance amid flashing lights and loud music to attract customers.
Police cited Sections 296 and 79 of the BNS, Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women Act, Section 4 of the tobacco Act and Karnataka Police Act licensing provisions.
The High Court held that Section 296 requires an obscene act in or near a public place to cause annoyance to others; without evidence of actual annoyance to a third party, the obscenity claim could not continue.
The High Court noted there was no material to show that a statement from any woman against whom a Section 79 offence was alleged had been recorded under Section 183(6) BNSS. It also found no allegation that the petitioners intended to insult a particular woman's modesty or directed words, sounds, gestures or objects at her. It said investigation into the Police Act and tobacco offences required prior Magistrate permission because those offences were non-cognizable.
The High Court ordered that the FIRs insofar as they concerned the petitioners were quashed.
What the record says
“is hereby quashed in all these petitions.”
High Court of Karnataka order dated 28 April 2025 — read the full text
No complaining victim
The FIRs alleged indecent dance performances and invoked obscenity, indecent-representation, tobacco and venue-licensing provisions; the Court quashed them based on missing statutory elements or required Magistrate permission.
What we could not confirm
The order says women were brought from other states and made to perform dances; it does not state their ages. The listed charges include no separate trafficking or force offence.