Bombay High Court
Deepak Balakrishna SalveversusThe state of Maharashtra
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that no case was made out against the applicants under the cited provisions and quashed the order rejecting their discharge, thereby discharging them.
Summary
The applicants, Deepak Salve and others, were charged in a special case for allegedly assaulting a minor and using obscene language, based on the testimony of the minor and the first informant. The prosecution alleged that a co-accused slapped the minor and that the applicants attempted to assault the informant and used obscene language. The applicants contended they were falsely implicated, that no POCSO provisions applied to them, and that there was no evidence of obscene language or insult. The High Court examined the applicability of IPC Sections 294 (obscene language) and 504 (intentional insult) and found no material to sustain a case against the applicants. Consequently, the court quashed the order rejecting their discharge, discharged the applicants, and allowed the revision application.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations against the applicants constitute an offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Whether the allegations constitute an offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Whether the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 applies to the applicants.
- Whether continuing the trial against the applicants would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- criminal law
- revision
- discharge
- IPC
- Section 294
- Section 504
- POCSO
- false implication
- abuse of process
Judgment
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
SHUBHADA slapped the minor on his butt, made an inappropriate remark, and asked
SHANKAR
KADAM the minor to give way. When the minor informed the first informant about
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR KADAM this incident and he confronted with co-accused, it is alleged that the
Date: 2026.09.03
12:10:48 +0530
applicants and co-accused abused the first informant, attempted to assault
Page 1 of 4
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.
Page 2 of 4
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:
ORDER
(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.
Page 3 of 4
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.)
Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…