Introduction:

In a significant ruling delineating the limits of police interference in licensed commercial activities, the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against operators of a hookah lounge who had been booked under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 20(2) of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA). Justice Tirumala Devi Eada, exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, held that the allegations in the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. The Court observed that the continuation of proceedings in the absence of a clear statutory violation would amount to an abuse of process of law. The petition arose from a crime registered by the Narsingi Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, against café operators who were running a hookah lounge within their premises.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners:

The petitioners contended that they were lawfully operating a café, within which a hookah lounge functioned as part of the business activity. On 26 July 2025, police officials visited the premises, seized certain materials used for hookah consumption, and registered a crime alleging that the establishment was being run without valid permission. The FIR invoked Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 20(2) of COTPA. Assailing the FIR, the petitioners argued that they had obtained a New Trade Licence from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) on 21 May 2025 authorising sale of tobacco products. Additionally, they had secured a valid licence from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), effective from 11 April 2025 to 10 April 2026. It was further submitted that on 09 June 2025, they had applied to the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, seeking issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to operate the hookah lounge. When no response was forthcoming, a reminder was sent. Instead of processing the application or communicating deficiencies, the police conducted a raid and registered the FIR. The petitioners argued that Section 20(2) of COTPA penalises sale or distribution of tobacco products that do not contain specified statutory warnings and nicotine/tar content details on packaging. There was no allegation that the products sold lacked such warnings. As regards Section 223 BNS, they submitted that the provision requires disobedience of a promulgated order issued by a lawfully empowered public servant. In the absence of any such promulgation or specific prohibitory order violated by them, invocation of Section 223 was misconceived. They contended that the FIR was registered mechanically and amounted to harassment despite their compliance with municipal and food safety licensing norms.

Arguments on Behalf of the State:

The State defended the registration of the FIR, asserting that the petitioners were operating a hookah centre without obtaining requisite permission from competent authorities. It was contended that operation of hookah lounges may have public health and law-and-order implications, thereby justifying police intervention. The prosecution maintained that running such an establishment without an NOC from the police authorities constituted sufficient ground to initiate criminal proceedings. It was argued that investigation would reveal whether the petitioners had complied with all regulatory conditions and that at the stage of FIR, detailed scrutiny of evidence was premature. The State also relied upon the regulatory framework governing tobacco products and public smoking, suggesting that hookah consumption falls within the ambit of tobacco control laws and may attract penal provisions if statutory norms are breached.

Court’s Analysis and Findings:

Justice Tirumala Devi Eada undertook a careful examination of the statutory provisions invoked. With respect to Section 20(2) of COTPA, the Court noted that the provision specifically penalises sale or distribution of cigarettes or tobacco products that do not bear the mandated health warnings and specified nicotine and tar content on the package or label. The complaint did not allege that the tobacco products used in the hookah lounge lacked such warnings or were in contravention of packaging requirements. In the absence of such foundational allegations, the essential ingredients of Section 20(2) were not satisfied. Turning to Section 223 of the BNS, the Court observed that the offence contemplates disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to issue such order. For the provision to be attracted, there must be (i) a promulgation of an order by a competent authority, and (ii) intentional disobedience thereof. The Court found that the FIR did not specify any particular order promulgated by a public servant which had been violated by the petitioners. Mere absence of an NOC, especially when an application seeking such NOC was pending consideration, could not ipso facto constitute disobedience of a promulgated order. The Court observed that instead of examining the petitioners’ representation and assessing whether the café conformed to standardised operational requirements, the police had resorted to registering a criminal case. Such action, without demonstrating violation of statutory mandates, was held to be improper. In its reasoning, the Court referred to the precedent in Chidurala Shyamsunder v. State of Telangana, wherein it was observed that mere purchase and sale of gutka products does not constitute an offence per se. The Court noted that gutka is a tobacco product and hookah also involves tobacco consumption; therefore, unless specific statutory violations are shown, criminal prosecution cannot be sustained. Further reliance was placed on Waheed Uddin Ahmed Ansar v. Principal Secretary, Home Department, where a co-ordinate Bench had held that while permission under the City Police Act may be required for establishment of hookah centres and reasonable conditions may be imposed, police are not to interfere with lawful business activity except in cases of violation of COTPA or related rules. The High Court reiterated that regulatory compliance must be assessed within the statutory framework and not through arbitrary police action. The Court emphasised that criminal law cannot be invoked in a routine or mechanical manner to stifle legitimate business operations conducted under valid licences. It concluded that the continuation of criminal proceedings in the present case amounted to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition was allowed and the proceedings were quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed.