ANKUSH BHAURAO SAWANT AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:15007-DB


                                                  1                             938.odt


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4336 OF 2024
                               1. ANKUSH BHAURAO SAWANT
                                2. SHARADA ANKUSH SAWANT
                              3. SANJAY RAOSAHEB SHIRSATH
                               4. RAOSAHEB SOPAN SHIRSATH
                           5. BABASAHEB RAOSAHEB SHIRSATH
                             6. RANJANA RAOSAHEB SHIRSATH
                                              VERSUS
                              1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                    2. PRITI NILESH KAMBLE
                                                ...
                         Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Avinash R. Borulkar
                         APP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S.N. Morampalle
                         Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. N.D. Jaiswal
                                                …

                                                  CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
                                                  DATE : 08TH APRIL, 2026

              PER COURT :

              1.          The challenge in the present application is to the First

              Information Report No. 359/2024, dated 16.07.2024, registered with

              Cantonment (Chawani) Police Station, Aurangabad City, for commission

              of offences punishable under Sections 333, 189 (2), 191 (2), 190, 115 (2),

              352, 351 (2), 351 (3) of the Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023. In the said

              FIR, lodged by one Priti Nilesh Kamble, total six accused are named

              whereas two are the unknown accused. The challenge is also to the filing

              of charge-sheet and order taking cognizance by the Magistrate.
                                     2                              938.odt


2.           Heard respective counsels.


3.           Principal contention of the learned counsel for the applicants

is that the FIR impugned is a striking example of a counter-blast and an

arm twisting tactics. He submitted that on 14.07.2024, initially FIR No.

356/2024, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)

(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 8 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, was registered by non-

applicant no. 2 against Sumit Ankush Sawant.


4.           In the said information report though incident had happened

in between 01.04.2024 till 31.05.2024, non-applicant no. 2 had lodged

the report at belated stage i.e. on 14.07.2024, falsely implicating the

accused therein. According to him, though the accused named in the said

FIR is not the applicant in the present proceedings, fact remains that his

father and mother i.e. applicant nos. 1 and 2 are the applicants herein.


5.           He then contended that non-applicant no. 2 any how wanted

to falsely implicate the present applicants and in order to get arrested the

son of applicant nos. 1 and 2 and, therefore, the impugned FIR is lodged.

He further contended that counter-blast is clear from the fact that a non

cognizable receipt was registered at the behest of Ankush Sawant /
                                      3                          938.odt


applicant no. 1 against non-applicant no. 2 and her relatives for

commission of offences punishable under Sections 352, 115 (2), 351 (2),

351 (3) and Section 3 (5) of the Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023, on

16.07.2024.


6.            In the said non cognizable report the information which was

supplied to the police specifically states that on 15.07.2024, at about 10

‘O’ clock in the night, the accused persons named in NCR questioned the

informant that as to where the son of applicant nos. 1 and 2 is hidden by

them. The accused persons in the NCR also asked the complainant to

bring his son before them and, thereafter, abused and assaulted them by

means of fists and blows. It was alleged in the information reflected in

NCR that applicant nos. 1 and 2 were also threatened.


7.            Learned counsel for the applicants then contended that in

order to give counter-blast to the NCR stated above which bears no.

1006/2024, dated 16.07.2024, the FIR impugned was lodged against

them. He, therefore, prayed that continuation of criminal prosecution

would not be in the interest of justice.


8.            Per contra, learned counsel for non-applicant no. 2 and

learned APP have contended that the arguments advanced by the counsel
                                     4                            938.odt


for the applicants can at the most be termed as a defence taken by him

which can be tested during the course of trial. According to them, at the

stage of exercising power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, mini trial cannot be conducted. Both of them, prayed for

dismissal of the application.


9.           With the assistance of respective counsels, I have gone

through the record of the case, so also have given thoughtful

consideration to the arguments advanced.


10.          The record of the case clearly shows that on 14.07.2024,

non-applicant no. 2 had lodged the complaint on the basis of which FIR

was registered against the son of applicant nos. 1 and 2, for commission

of offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal

Code and under Sections 4 and 8 the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012. It is also clear from the record that on 16.07.2024, a

non cognizable receipt was issued in favour of applicant no. 1, since

according to applicant no. 1, non-applicant no. 2 and her family members

had threatened and beaten them. The record also shows that impugned

FIR is lodged thereafter, i.e. on 16.07.2024.


11.          If the impugned FIR is perused, it is alleged therein by non-
                                    5                             938.odt


applicant no. 2, that all the accused persons named therein, entered the

house of non-applicant no. 2 and questioned as to why they had lodged

the complaint against the son of applicant no. 1. On that count, they

started abusing and giving fists and blows to non-applicant no. 2. They

have also threatened non-applicant no. 2 to withdraw the case by

accepting the expenses. Further threatening was given that they would

take appropriate action against the daughters of non-applicant no. 2.


12.          It is in this background, the contention of the parties are

taken into consideration. No doubt, there is initial lodgment of non

cognizable receipt at the behest of applicant no. 1, but nothing has been

brought on record to show that in order to take non cognizable receipt to

the logical end, any proceedings are filed before the Jurisdictional

Magistrate by applicant no. 1. Just because, there is an NCR and,

thereafter, the impugned FIR is filed that could not be a ground enough to

quash the FIR impugned.


13.          The allegations made in FIR are crystal clear that all the

accused persons entered the house of non-applicant no. 2, threatened her

and asked her to withdraw the case by accepting the amount. They have

also threatened that her daughter would face consequences if the

complaint is not withdrawn. It cannot be ignored that before two days
                                      6                            938.odt


only non-applicant no. 2, has lodged the complaint on the basis of which

serious offence under Section 376 (2) (n) of the IPC and under provisions

of Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, is registered against the son of applicant nos. 1 and 2. The defence of

the applicants that the impugned FIR is striking example of counter-blast

can always be taken during the course of trial. Suffice it to say that the

allegations are well-founded. Further there is an independent witness

whose statement is brought on record by the prosecution, more

particularly, at page no. 89. The neighbour by name Pratibha Praful

Nirmal, in her statement dated 18.07.2024, has also supported the stand

taken by non-applicant no. 2 and has categorically narrated the incident

as narrated by non-applicant no. 2.


14.          In that view of the matter, I find no merit in the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the applicants. Since the prima facie

case is made out, I am not inclined to entertain the present application.

Hence, Criminal Application is dismissed.




                                               ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )



SPC