Applicants sought quashing of an FIR alleging they threatened and assaulted a woman to withdraw a POCSO/rape complaint against their son. Court held allegations were well-founded with independent witness support and dismissed the Section 482 application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
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
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 :
2 938.odt
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 nonapplicant no. 2 against Sumit Ankush Sawant.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )
SPC
2 issues framed by the court
Whether FIR No. 359/2024 alleging assault and threats against the POCSO complainant was a counter-blast liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the prior NCR lodged by applicant no. 1 sufficed to establish that the impugned FIR was false and retaliatory.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Ankush Bhaurao Sawant
Sharada Ankush Sawant
Sanjay Raosaheb Shirsath
Raosaheb Sopan Shirsath
Babasaheb Raosaheb Shirsath
Ranjana Raosaheb Shirsath
Rajnish R. Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
12 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
