5-REVN-69-2026 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 69 OF 2026 Deepak Balakrishna Salve and ors. ...Applicants Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. ...Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Ganesh Gupta along with Mr. Sahil Ghorpade, Mr. Tushar Gaikwad, Mr. Madan Khansole, Mr. Surya P. Gupta and Ms. Priyanka Rathod i/b. G. G. Legal Associates, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S. M. Mangaonkar, APP for Respondent No.1-State. Ms. Surbhi S. Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent No.2. API-Amol Chavan, Shahunagar Police Station, Mumbai, present. _________________________________________________________________ CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 31st AUGUST, 2026. P.C. : 1. The challenge in this revision application is to the impugned order dated 15th February 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Court, Mumbai, below Exhibit 6 in Special Case No. 870 of 2022, whereby the discharge application of the applicants was rejected. 2. It is prosecution's case that on 29th May 2021, when the son of the first informant was standing near his house, the applicant No. 1 Deepak Salve and co-accused came there. The co-accused Anuradha slapped the minor on his butt, made an inappropriate remark, and asked the minor to give way. When the minor informed the first informant about this incident and he confronted with co-accused, it is alleged that the applicants and co-accused abused the first informant, attempted to assault SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Digitally signed by SHUBHADA SHANKAR KADAM Date: 2026.09.03 12:10:48 +0530 5-REVN-69-2026 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam him, and used obscene language. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. Complaints have been filed by the first informant and the applicants against each other. The provisions of POCSO would not be applicable against the applicants as applicants Nos. 2 and 3 were not present when the co-accused allegedly slapped the minor on his butt. Applicant No. 1 never touched the minor nor abused him. No case is at all made out against the applicants but these facts are not considered by the learned Sessions Judge and has passed the impugned order, which is erroneous, and requested to allow the application. 4. It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the statement of the minor is recorded, in which, he has specifically stated that the co-accused Anuradha slapped him on his butt and made an inappropriate remark and at that time applicant No. 1 was present with her. Learned APP further submitted that thereafter when the first informant tried to confront the co-accused about the said act, the applicants attempted to assault the first informant and used obscene language, which shows the involvement of the applicants in the crime. Learned Sessions Judge has passed a well-reasoned order and no interference is required in it, and requested to reject the application. 5-REVN-69-2026 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam 5. I have heard all learned counsel, perused the impugned order and documents produced on record. Admittedly, the allegations of touching the minor are against the co-accused Anuradha. There are no allegations under the provisions of POCSO against the applicants. Section 294 of the IPC relates to the use of obscene language in a public place. From the record, it does not reveal that the applicants used any obscene language. Section 504 of the IPC is a non-cognizable offence relating to intentional insult, which reads as follows: “Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” From the record, it does not appear that the applicants have committed this offence. No case is made out against the applicants as alleged by the prosecution. Continuation of the trial against the applicants would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Hence, I pass following order: O R D E R (1)The impugned order dated 15th February 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Court, Mumbai, below Exhibit 6 in Special Case No. 870 of 2022 is quashed and set aside. 5-REVN-69-2026 (CR).doc Shubhada S Kadam (ii) The applicants are discharged in Special Case No. 870 of 2022. The Revision Application is allowed in above terms and disposed of. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)