Telangana High Court
Varikuppala Chandra Shekar vs The State Of Telangana on 4 August, 2022
Author: Chillakur Sumalatha
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6975 OF 2022
ORDER:-
1. Heard Ms.S.Srivani, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor who is representing the 1st respondent-State and Sri P.Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent i.e. the defacto complainant.
2. Seeking to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioner in Crime No.167 of 2022 of Cybercrime Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, the present Criminal Petition is filed.
3. As per the contents of the First Information Report, the allegation that is levelled against the petitioner is that he committed offences punishable under Sections 354-D IPC and Section 67-A of Information Technology Act, 2000.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence what so ever and indeed, after registration of the case, the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant entered into compromise and therefore, they moved I.A.Nos.1 of 2022 and 2 of 2022 2 Dr.CSL,J Crlp.No.6975 of 2022 seeking the Court to record the compromise and to quash the proceedings and therefore, the proceedings may be quashed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent also states that after registration of the case, the matter is settled between the parties and therefore, the 2nd respondent is not intending to continue the proceedings and hence, the proceedings that are pending against the petitioner, may be quashed.
6. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor stated that on registration of criminal case, the proceedings would be between the accused and the State and the role of the defacto complainant becomes minimal. As the offences are non-compoundable in nature, the Court should not accord permission for compounding the offences. Making a submission that even the offence punishable under Section 354-D IPC can be compounded and the proceedings can be quashed, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in Crl.P.No.12584 of 2018 and Crl.P.No.1595 of 2018. Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at 3 Dr.CSL,J Crlp.No.6975 of 2022 Chandigarh in a case between Peter Singh Vs.State of Punjab and others1 and also the decision of the same Court in Mohan Singh Vs.State of Punjab and another2
7. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner as per the contents of FIR are punishable under Sections 354-D IPC and Section 67-A of Information Technology Act.
8. The crux of the complaint is that the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant received phone video link from unknown Whatsapp number i.e. 9848343794 and she got scared by seeing those videos. She replied to that number asking who was that. But, there was no reply from the other end. On the following day, again she received phone video links from the same user. Due to those links, she underwent mental trauma and was unable to lead life peacefully.
9. With the above averments, the de facto complainant sought the help of the police to catch the culprit and requested to take necessary legal action against him. 1 CRM‐M‐26624‐2020, dated 22.12.2020 2 CRM‐M‐46033‐2021, dated 17.12.2021 4 Dr.CSL,J Crlp.No.6975 of 2022
10. Section 354-D makes the offence of stalking punishable with imprisonment for the first conviction of either description which may extend to three years with fine. It is laid that for the 2nd and subsequent convictions, the imprisonment may extend to five years and also liable to fine. The offence punishable under Section 354-D IPC is non-compoundable in nature. The said provision reads as follows:-
" Any man who--
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking1;
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that--
(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or
(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of 5 Dr.CSL,J Crlp.No.6975 of 2022 either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine."
11. Coming to Section 67-A of Information Technology Act 2000, the said provision prescribes punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form. The said provision reads as under:-
67A Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form. -Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.
12. Thus, the said provision in the Information Technology Act prohibits transmission of sexually explicit material in electronic form. The gravity of the offence can be perceived by the term of sentence prescribed. By the averments of the complaint itself, it is clear that the police, 6 Dr.CSL,J Crlp.No.6975 of 2022 prima facie, found that the said allegations attracts 354-D IPC and Section 67-A of Information Technology Act. The alleged acts of the petitioner prima facie cannot be held to be directed extremely against the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. When the offences involve peace and tranquillity of the society and more particularly, the safety and security of women and protection of their modesty and their privacy, this Court is of the view that it is not desirable to permit the petitioner/accused and the de facto complainant to enter into compromise. Basing on that unlawful compromise, the proceedings cannot be quashed. No other grounds are urged by the petitioner so as to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, holding that the Criminal Petition lacks merits, the same is dismissed.
13. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA Dt.04.08.2022 ysk 7 Dr.CSL,J Crlp.No.6975 of 2022 THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6975 OF 2022 Dt.04.08.2022 ysk