1 23-J-APL-352-2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 352 OF 2021 APPLICANT : Gyanendra Dabrilal Kushwaha, (Accused No.1) A/a 62 years, Occu : Advocate, R/o Pande Layout, Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal. V E R S U S NON-APPLICANTS : 1. State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Police Station: Vasantnagar, Tah. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal. (Informant ) 2. Jayashri Ramkrushna Wankhede, Aged 39 Yrs, Occu : Housewife, R/o Near Naik Dairy, Selu, Tah. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 349 OF 2021 APPLICANT : Fiza Parveen Naushad Khan, (Accused No.2) A/a 20 years, Occu : Education, R/o Galli No.1, Vasantnagar, Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal. V E R S U S NON-APPLICANTS : 1. State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Police Station: Vasantnagar, Tah. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal. (Informant ) 2. Jayashri Ramkrushna Wankhede, Aged 39 Yrs, Occu : Housewife, R/o Near Naik Dairy, Selu, Tah. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Shital Dhawas, Advocate for applicants. Shri N. B. Jawade, Additional Public Prosecutor for Non-applicant No.1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2026:BHC-NAG:3055-DB 2 23-J-APL-352-2021.doc CORAM: URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 17/02/2026. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By these applications, the applicants in both the applications are seeking quashing of the FIR in connection with Crime No.340/2020 registered under Sections 354, 324, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and the consequent proceeding arising out of same bearing Charge Sheet No.441/2024. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of the applications are as under :- 3. The non-applicant No.2 has filed the report on an allegation that she is having property adjacent to the property of Matroshri Vithabai Marotrao Trust. On 22/12/2020 at 1.00 p.m., when she saw that the applicants were present and she asked the applicants as to why the wire fencing was going on. Upon asking so, the applicants rushed on her person and torn her blouse and also assaulted her cousin brother and outraged her modesty as well as caused injury to the person i.e. Rajesh Salunke who intervened the quarrel. On the basis of the said report, police have registered a crime against the present applicants. 3 23-J-APL-352-2021.doc 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicants who submitted that on the basis of false and baseless allegations, the applicants are implicated due to the previous enmity between them. She submitted that considering the entire investigation papers, no prima facie case is made out against the present applicants, but it is apparent that due to the previous dispute when the applicants had been to their agricultural field, the present non-applicant No.2 intervened in the work of wire fencing and thereafter, lodged a false report against the present applicants. She submitted that on the contrary, applicant - Gyanendra Dabrilal Kushwaha has received grievous injuries in the alleged incident. Thus, considering the nature of the injuries which are sustained by the applicant - Gyanendra Kushwaha, it is apparent that the present non-applicant No.2 was the aggressor and she has caused injuries to the applicant in Criminal Application (APL) No. 352/2021 and therefore, for all the above grounds, applications deserve to be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the said contention and invited my attention towards the statements of the witnesses, especially the statements of Sayad Ali and Rajesh Malhari Salunke who are the eye-witnesses to the incident and submitted that they have specifically narrated the role of the 4 23-J-APL-352-2021.doc present applicants. This allegation is more substantiated by the medical certificate of Rajesh Salunke as well as the medical certificate of non-applicant No.2. Thus, at this stage, there is prima facie material to connect the present applicants with the alleged offence. In view of that, applications deserve to be rejected. 6. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire investigation papers and before entering into the merits of the case, it is necessary to see what are the considerations for exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 7. In view of the parameters of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, wherein following principles / guidelines are laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court for consideration of the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 5 23-J-APL-352-2021.doc (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. By applying the said parameters to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that due to the previous dispute, the alleged incident has occurred. Admittedly, the applicant Gyanendra Kushwaha has also sustained injuries in the said incident. The statements of the witnesses show that when the applicant - Gyanendra Kushwaha and another applicant - Fisa Parveen Naushad Khan both have been to the agricultural field and doing the fencing work, at that time, non-applicant No.2 has 6 23-J-APL-352-2021.doc enquired with them and on that count, there was hot exchange of words between them and during that period, her blouse was torn allegedly by the applicant - Gyanendra Kushwaha. This aspect is further substantiated by the medical certificate as injury was found on the arm of the victim when she was medically examined. The another witness who intervened in the quarrel has also sustained grievous injuries in the said incident. Admittedly, Rajesh Salunke had been there to intervene in the quarrel, but he was also assaulted by the applicants. There is specific allegation as far as both applicants are concerned, it is alleged that the applicant - Fiza Parveen Naushad Khan has held the hands of the victim and thereafter, the other applicant assaulted her. Similarly, the eye- witness was also assaulted by both the applicants. 9. Thus, considering the statements of the witnesses, prima facie case is made out against the present applicants. In view of that, both applications deserve to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order :- ORDER 10. The applications are rejected. [JUDGE] Choulwar