Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Maharashtra at Nagpur, Division Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande on Tuesday declined to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of posting allegedly objectionable material about a married woman on Facebook, holding that such online conduct may amount to stalking under Section 354D of the IPC and assault or use of criminal force with intent to outrage a woman’s modesty under Section 354. The Court recorded that the content was said to have been repeatedly uploaded to malign the woman and disturb her marital life and clarified that any prior relationship or financial dispute does not give a man licence to harass a woman by circulating such material on social media.

The applicant filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of an FIR dated 06.02.2020 registered as Crime No. 0039/2020 at Police Station Channi, District Akola, and the consequential proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 255/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patur.

Also Read: Clicking Photos Of Woman Not Engaged In Private Act Not Voyeurism Under Section 354C IPC: Supreme Court

The FIR was lodged by non-applicant No. 2, who stated that she married on 30.12.2019 and resided at her matrimonial home. She alleged that she had earlier become acquainted with the applicant through Facebook and had conversed with him. According to the FIR, the applicant proposed marriage, which she declined, after which he allegedly posted objectionable material on her Facebook account on 10.01.2019, 10.06.2019, 30.09.2019, and on one more occasion. She further stated that the applicant had visited her house on 31.07.2018 with a bottle of poison and threatened to commit suicide, following which he apologized at the police station. She asserted that the applicant’s acts were causing disturbance to her marital life.

The applicant, however, contended that both parties had known each other since 2014–2015 and that their relationship developed into a love affair. He claimed that marriage between them had been discussed by families, and that he had lent her and her family members amounts totalling Rs. 2,88,000/-. He alleged that further monetary and property demands were made, and when he asked for a refund of the amount on 25.11.2018, he was abused and threatened. He then filed a complaint under Sections 420, 504, and 506 read with 34 IPC. He claimed the FIR was false and lacked ingredients of the alleged offences.

The State opposed the plea, submitting that statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded, and that Section 66A of the IT Act, though wrongly added, had been deleted. It was contended that a prima facie case existed.

The Court examined the FIR and recorded that it was lodged with allegations that the applicant posted objectionable material on Facebook which amounts to offences under Sections 354 and 354-D IPC. It recorded: “it was lodged by the non-applicant No. 2, alleging that the applicant has made some objectionable posts on the Facebook account that is a social site which amount to offence punishable under Section 354, 354-D of the Indian Penal Code.”

It stated that Section 354 IPC concerns “assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty” and Section 354-D IPC concerns “stalking”, quoting the statutory text in full.  The Court observed that when the FIR and the content of the Facebook posts are considered, “posting of a post on a social site i.e. Facebook, would amount to committing an offence as contemplated under the above sections.”

Also Read: Chemco Plast Barred From Using ‘Chemco’ As Trademark But Allowed Trade Name And Domain Use: Bombay High Court

It recorded that non-applicant No. 2 was a married woman residing with her husband and that even if there were a prior relationship or financial dealings, “that cannot be construed as giving a license to the applicant herein to post some objectionable post over the social site.”  It further stated that issues relating to alleged money lent or prior relationship were matters for evidence in a full trial and could not justify quashing.

The Court also recorded the Supreme Court's holding in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC “are to be sparingly used and cannot be a tool to stifle a legitimate prosecution.” Based on this, the Court observed: “this is not a case in view of the overwhelming material, at least at a prima facie stage, to quash the proceeding at the threshold. The application is rejected.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Applicant: Shri Sunil Kulkarni, Advocate h/f Shri S.D. Chande, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. S.S. Dhote, APP

Case Title: Tukaram s/o Balasaheb Raskar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-NAG:13357-DB
Case Number: Criminal Application (APL) No. 522 of 2020
Bench: Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande