Bombay High Court
Mr Yadvendra S/O Dilip Sharma vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 6 July, 2017
Bench: R.M. Borde
{1}
crappln710116.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.7101 OF 2016
Mr.Yadvendra s/o Dilip Sharma,
age: 31 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Anandsagar, Near Bharat Gas,
Newasa Road, Shrirampur,
Tq.Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. Applicant
Versus
01 The State of Maharashtra,
through In-charge,
Kranti Chowk Police Station,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad.
02 Smt.Surekha Kachru Dedwal,
age: 34 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Plot No.75, "Dattakrupa",
Naiknagar, Beed By Pass Road,
Aurangabad, District Aurangabad. Respondents
Mr.V.D.Sapkal, advocate for the applicant.
Mr.S.R.Yadav Lonikar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
Ms.S.V.Gaikwad, advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE AND
A.M.DHAVALE, JJ.
DATE : 06th July, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.) :
1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.
2 The applicant is praying to quash the proceedings
initiated against the applicant in pursuance to lodging of First
Information Report by Respondent No.2, bearing Crime No.1131 of
{2}
crappln710116.odt
2016, dated 27.10.2016, registered at Kranti Chowk Police Station,
Aurangabad, alleging commission of offence punishable under
Sections 354-D and 507 of the Indian Penal Code.
3 In the First Information Report lodged by Respondent
No.2-complainant, it is alleged that on 26.10.2016, while she was
working at the office of Regional Transport Office, Aurangabad, one
unknown person came and enquired about his pending work. It
was informed by Respondent No.2 that due to work of upgradation
of online process, there is some difficulty and work got delayed.
The unknown person thereafter requested her to talk with his
master on his mobile hand set. It is alleged that that the applicant
herein, who was on the other side, threatened the complainant.
He asked her as to why the work is delayed and how much money
she want for doing the work. He further stated that tomorrow the
Commissioner of Transport as well as Hon'ble Minister for
Transport will call her on phone about the pending work. It is
alleged that the applicant herein, who talked with the complainant
on the the handset of his employee, was talking in such a manner,
which amounts to offence within the ambit of Section 354-D of the
Indian Penal Code.
4 Section 354-D describes "Stalking", as, any man who
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 monitors the use by a woman of
the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,
commits the offence of stalking.
{3}
crappln710116.odt
5 In the instant matter, on perusal of the First
Information Report, it cannot be inferred that the applicant
followed Respondent No.2 and established a contact or attempted
to establish contact with a view to foster personal interaction
repeatedly despite clear indication of disinterest by respondent
no.2. Firstly, it must be noted that the applicant herein did not
himself established contact with the complainant. It is alleged that
the employee of applicant called his master on phone and
requested the complainant to talk with him. Therefore, it cannot
be said that the applicant contacted or attempted to contact the
complainant to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a
clear indication of disinterest by the complainant.
6 Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code relate to criminal
intimidation by an anonymous communication. It is provided that
whosoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an
anonymous communication, or having taken precaution to conceal
the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, in addition to the punishment
provided for the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal
Code.
7 In the instant matter, it is not the case of complainant
that the alleged criminal intimidation is by an anonymous
communication. According to the complainant, the applicant has
disclosed his identity. There was also no allegation that there was
any precaution taken by the applicant to conceal his identity.
{4}
crappln710116.odt
8 On perusal of the First Information Report, there does
not appear to be any allegation relating to extending of threats to
the complainant at the instance of applicant. What is recorded in
the First Information Report, is that one Mr.Shelke, RTO official,
informed the complainant that the caller on mobile number
9552460003, which allegedly belongs to the applicant, had
extended threats to the complainant. On consideration of the
allegations recorded in the First Information Report, neither the
offence under Section 354-D nor under Section 507 of the Indian
Penal Code can be said to have been made out.
9 For the reasons recorded above, criminal proceedings
initiated against the applicant at the instance of complainant -
Respondent No.2 herein, bearing Crime No.1131 of 2016, dated
27.10.2016, registered at Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad,
alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 354-D
and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, deserves to be quashed and
same are accordingly quashed.
10 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
A.M.DHAVALE R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
adb/crappln710116
