- 1 - criappln389.24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 981 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 389 OF 2024 1. Rajiv s/o Yashwant Salve, Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired, R/o. Achal Residency, Vinayak Nagar, Ahmednagar Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar 2. Ranjana w/o Rajiv Salve age 60 years, occ. Household R/o. Achal Residency, Vinayak Nagar, Ahmednagar Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar 3 Praffulkumar s/o Rajiv Salve age 32 years, occ. Govt. Service R/o. Achal Residency, Vinayak Nagar, Ahmednagar Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar 4. Prabhuddha s/o Rajiv Salve age 25 years, occ. Service r/o Pune. ...APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Superintendent of Police Beed, Dist. Beed. 2. The Police Inspector Police Station, Ambhora Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. 3. Anita w/o Vijay Ghatvisave age 36 years, occ. Household r/o village Pimpalgaon Ghat, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. ...RESPONDENTS Ms. Sushma T. Jadhav, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. C. V. Bhadane, APP for the State. Mr. G. R. Syed, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. - 2 - criappln389.24.odt CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 28th JANUARY, 2026. PER COURT : 1. Applicants have preferred this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of FIR No. 103/2023 registered with Ambhora Police Station, Tq. Ashti District Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceedings in RCC No. 222/2023 pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti, Dist. Beed. 2. The aforesaid crime came to be registered pursuant to the First Information Report No. 103/2023 lodged by Respondent No. 3 alleging therein that on 04.06.2023 at about 3.00 pm, when she alongwith her father-in-law and sister-in-law were sitting infront of their house, Applicants herein came there and abused them on the count of civil dispute pending between them. When she tried to pacify the incident, the Applicants herein assaulted her father-in-law with fists and kicks and Applicant No. 1 abused and threatened her and outraged her modesty. - 3 - criappln389.24.odt 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicants submits that the allegations against Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 in the First Information Report are entirely false, frivolous and concocted. Except for bald assertions, no specific overt act attracting the alleged offences is attributed against them. It is further submitted that a civil dispute is pending between the parties and the present First Information Report is lodged as a counterblast to the pending civil dispute and First Information Report lodged by Applicant No. 1 on the very same day against Respondent No. 3 and her family members. 4. It is his further submission that Applicant No. 3 is serving in defence department and at the time of the alleged incident he had undergone surgery at Ahilyanagar and was unable to even walk. Similarly, Applicant No. 4 is serving at Pune and at the time of the alleged incident he was present at Pune. It is his further submission that, in her supplementary statements, recorded on 31.08.2023 and 04.09.2023, the informant has specifically stated that Applicants Nos. 3 and 4 were not present on the spot at the time of the alleged incident and their names were inadvertently added in the complaint. Consequently, the prosecution initiated against Applicant Nos. 3 and - 4 - criappln389.24.odt 4 is a sheer abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned APP and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 vehemently opposed the application submitting that offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is a serious offence. They further submit that the allegations in the First Information Report sufficiently establish complicity of the Applicants in the alleged crime. As such, the application does not warrant consideration and is liable to be rejected. 6. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the litigating sides and perusal of the record, including charge-sheet, it is evident that allegations are general and omnibus in nature. Except for bald assertions, no specific overt act is attributed to Applicant Nos. 3 and 4. The allegations in the First Information Report, even if taken at face value, do not disclose essential ingredients of Sections 354, 323, 504 and 506 against Applicant Nos. 3 and 4. 7. The record further indicates that there is a civil dispute between the parties concerning agricultural land. Further, it appears - 5 - criappln389.24.odt from record that several First Information Reports are lodged by Applicant No. 1 against the informant and her family members. In that view of the matter, it is evident that the informant has lodged the present First Information Report to counterblast the complaint lodged by Applicant No. 1 or as a retaliation to the earlier complaints. 8. Perusal of record further indicates that Applicant No. 3 Prafullakumar is working in defence department at Ahilyanagar and had undergone surgery on 23.05.2023 as a result of which he was unable to walk at the time of the alleged incident. Similarly, Applicant No. 4 Prabuddha is working at Pune. Furthermore, the informant in her supplementary statements recorded on 31.08.2023 and 04.09.2023 has specifically stated that Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 were not present on the spot at the time of the alleged incident and their names were inadvertently recorded in the complaint. 9. Thus, on perusal of record it appears that the dispute between the parties is personal in nature and the criminal proceedings have been initiated to coofer cloak of criminality to the private dispute. Though the offence under Section 354 is non-compoundable, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations do not disclose a - 6 - criappln389.24.odt prima facie offence against Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 and therefore,the bar of non-compoundability does not operate in the facts of the present case. 10. In view of material on record, when this Court has shown disinclination to consider application in favour of Applicant Nos. 1 and 2, learned Counsel for Applicants, seeks leave to withdraw application to the extent of Applicant Nos. 1 and 2. 11. Leave granted. Application stands dismissed against Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 as withdrawn. 12. Thus, in view of the above states facts, no useful purpose would be served by permitting the prosecution to continue against Applicant Nos. 3 and 4 and continuation of the criminal proceedings against them would amount to sheer abuse of process of law. 13. Accordingly, the application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ and ‘B-1’, qua Applicant Nos. 3 and 4. - 7 - criappln389.24.odt 14. The impugned complaint i.e. First Information Report No. 103/2023 registered with Ambhora Police Station, Tq. Ashti, Dist Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, charge-sheet No. 143/2023 and consequential proceeding in RCC No. 222/2023 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti, Dist. Beed, stand quashed and set aside qua Applicant Nos. 3 and 4. 15. Needless to state that the Trial Court shall proceed as against Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 in accordance with law. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) dyb