JUDGMENT : A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Thakre waives service on behalf of respondent No. 1, and learned Adv. Mr. Mahajan, for respondent No. 2. By consent of rival parties, this Criminal Application is taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this Judgment and Order. Following is the Prayer Clause [1] of this Application:- "1] quash the F.I.R. dated 22.9.2014 bearing No. 356/2014 registered at Police Station, Bhandara, under Sections 354-A (1),294." 2. Applicant No. 1 Swati and Applicant No. 2 Prashant are the wife and husband respectively. Respondent No. 2 Sau. Sangita Bansod is a doctor who runs her hospital with her husband Dr. Sanjay Bansod at Bhandara. 3. Applicant No. 1 lodged First Information Report on 13th September, 2014 with Police Station Bhandara, and stated that she holds authorization for running a medical shop, and in order to help her family, wanted to earn and, therefore, accepted the proposal of Dr. Sanjay Bansod of Takiya Ward, Bhandara, who is running a hospital, to start a medical stores in his premises on lease of Rs. 500/- per month for selling medicines and drugs. In October, 2012, she had even paid a total amount of Rs. 97,000/- to Dr. Bansod for storing medicines and drugs in Saibhumika Medical Stores and accordingly the shop was being run. She was being given Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month as remuneration for running the shop. The business was going on. She is a married woman with her husband Prashant, Applicant No. 2. However, from March, 2013, Dr. Sanjay Bansod started misbehaving with her by catching her hand and telling her that she was looking beautiful and that, therefore, he used to keep one hand on her cheek and the other on her shoulder. She did not like his behavior and, therefore, warned him that she would tell his wife Dr. Sangita Bansod and she accordingly told her and then he stopped his indecent behavior for some time. However, due to her reporting to Dr. Sangita Bansod, on 13th August, 2013, Dr. Sanjay Bansod came to her shop, asking as to why complaint was made to his wife and again started the same behavior with her. She had no alternative because she was required to support her family, particularly ailing father-in-law. She somehow tolerated whatever was going on. 4. Sangita Bansod, on 13th August, 2013, Dr. Sanjay Bansod came to her shop, asking as to why complaint was made to his wife and again started the same behavior with her. She had no alternative because she was required to support her family, particularly ailing father-in-law. She somehow tolerated whatever was going on. 4. In August, 2014 again at 8.30 p.m., when she went to the Doctor to talk about the accounts etc., he again caught her hand and stated that she was looking beautiful, and even pulled her towards him, so also her saree and tried to outrage her modesty. He then threatened her to close down the shop and, thus, she went on tolerating due to her need to earn something for her family and, thus, he committed various offences. Accordingly, on 13th September, 2014, an FIR was lodged and it was registered for offences under Sections354, 454, 380 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Dr. Sanjay Bansod, having realized about lodgment of FIR, appears to have convinced his wife Dr. Sangita Bansod to lodge an FIR against both Applicant No. 1 Swati and her husband Prashant, complainant that on 12th September, 2014, Applicant No. 1 Swati had come to her, filthily abused when she had gone to medical shop in the possession of applicant No. 1 and threatened her to pay Rs. 6,00,000-00 if she wanted vacation of the shop and that her husband and herself had put another lock on the earlier lock of the shop. On the allegations made by Dr. Sangita, police registered FIR No. 356 for offences under Sections 354-A (1) and 294 of Indian Penal Code. 6. In support of the application, Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the Applicants, submitted that reading of the FIR itself shows that at any rate in so far as Applicant No. 1 Swati is concerned, question of outraging of modesty contemplated by Section 354 of Indian Penal Code by a woman, i.e., applicant No. 1, does not arise and, therefore, the FIR against her is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. None appeared for respondent No. 2, though served. We have perused the FIR lodged by the Applicant No. 1 earlier in point of time and the FIR lodged later by Dr. Sangita Bansod against her. 7. None appeared for respondent No. 2, though served. We have perused the FIR lodged by the Applicant No. 1 earlier in point of time and the FIR lodged later by Dr. Sangita Bansod against her. The FIR registered by respondent No. 2 is under Sections 354-A(1) and 294, Indian Penal Code. We have no hesitation in accepting the contention raised by learned counsel for the Applicants that Applicant No. 1, a woman, has not committed any offences against respondent No. 2 Dr. Sangita Bansod, the woman under Section 354-A(1), Indian Penal Code. In so far as the offence under Section 294, Indian Penal Code, is concerned, there are also no allegations against Applicant No. 1 - Swati constituting offence under Sections 294, Indian Penal Code. We, therefore, think, we should relegate the applicants to the alternate remedy available. In that view of the matter, we make the following order:- ORDER [a] Criminal Application [APL] No. 660 of 2014 is partly allowed. [b] Rule is made partly absolute in terms of Prayer Clause [1] by quashing FIR No. 356/2014 dated 22nd September, 2014 registered at Police Station, Bhandara for offences under Sections 354-A(1) and294, Indian Penal Code, as against Applicant No. 1 only. [c] Criminal Application No. 660 of 2014 by Applicant No. 2 is not entertained, and he is relegated to the alternate remedy for filing application for discharge, if so advised. If such application is made, the same shall be considered expeditiously.