Shalini Harpalsingh Dugal vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1116 Bom

 Ganesh Lokhande               1 of 8             IA(St)-2743-20 in -CA-481-16.doc




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                   INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 2743 OF 2020
 Shalini Harpalsingh Dugal                                  ...Applicant

 IN THE MATTER OF :-

 Shalini Harpalsingh Dugal & Ors.                           ...Applicants

          Versus

 The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                            ...Respondents

                                    IN
                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 481 OF 2016

 Shalini Harpalsingh Dugal & Ors.                           ...Applicants

          Versus

 The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                            ...Respondents
                                   .....
 Mr. Yakshay Chedda i/b. SSB Legal and Advisory , Advocate for the
 Applicants.
 Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for the Respondents - State.
                                   .....
                           CORAM : S. S. SHINDE AND
                                   PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.

Reserved on :- 16th December, 2020.

Pronounced on :- 18th January, 2021.

JUDGMENT :- (Per Prakash D. Naik, J)

1. This application is filed seeking modification of Order

dated 29th April, 2016 passed by this Court in Criminal Application

No. 481 of 2016. Pursuant to direction of the Hon'ble Chief Justice

application is listed before us.

2. The Applicant seeks following prayers :

Ganesh Lokhande 2 of 8 IA(St)-2743-20 in -CA-481-16.doc

"(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to treat the Order and

Judgment dated 29th April, 2016 as passed by this Hon'ble

Court in Criminal Application No. 481 of 2016 as confidential

and without the permission of the Applicants, no one should

access it;

(b) In the alternative, That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to

block the name of the Applicant No. 1 as appearing in the

Order and Judgment dated 29th April, 2016 as passed by this

Hon'ble Court in Criminal Application No. 481 of 2016; and

(c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any other and

further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the

facts and circumstances of this case."

3. Criminal Application No. 481 of 2016 was preferred by

the present applicant and others. vide Order dated 29 th April, 2016,

the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: A. S. Oka and P. D. Naik,

J.J.) were pleased to quash and set aside FIR in C. R. No. 66 of 2016

registered with Gamdevi Police Station, on the ground that the

parties had amicably settled the dispute.

4. The applicant (Original Applicant No. 01), son of the

applicant and the daughter of applicant No. 1 and respondent No. 2

had preferred the above referred Criminal Application No. 481 of

Ganesh Lokhande 3 of 8 IA(St)-2743-20 in -CA-481-16.doc

2016 for quashing the FIR registered with Gamdevi Police Station

vide C. R. No. 66 of 2016 for offences punishable under Sections

323, 326, 342, 506 r/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

("IPC" for short). The said FIR was lodged by Original Respondent

No. 2 who is the husband of the applicant. The FIR relates to an

incident of 16th March, 2016 occurred at Dubai. It was alleged that

Original Respondent No. 2 was assaulted by the accused(Original

Applicants). Consent terms were executed between the parties. The

complainant tendered an affidavit before this Court. By Order dated

29th April, 2016 it was observed that the dispute between the parties

was over a property. The altercation between the applicant and the

Original Respondent No. 2 led to registration of the FIR. In view of

settlement, it was also observed that one of the term of the

settlement is that only the applicant No. 1 and the respondent No. 2

shall cohabit together and no other applicant will reside with them.

The Court further observed that the dispute is of personal nature

amongst close family members which has been amicably settled.

5. The contention of the applicant is that the applicant is

happily residing with Original Applicant No. 2 and Original-

Respondent No. 2 in Dubai. The Original Applicant No. 3 is married

and residing with her husband and child at Dubai. The applicant and

respondent No. 2 are senior citizens and their son and daughter are

Ganesh Lokhande 4 of 8 IA(St)-2743-20 in -CA-481-16.doc

young and being prejudice on account of their name being

mentioned in the said Judgment which is freely accessible. The

applicant was unaware that the Judgment would be freely accessible

on google while searching her name. In view of the aforesaid

circumstances, blocking the names of the parties from the Judgment

would not cause any prejudice to anyone but causing grave prejudice

to applicants in their daily life. It is submitted that in the event

prayer 'a' is not granted the alternative prayer 'b' be granted by

blocking the name of the applicant as appearing in the Order and

Judgment dated 29th April, 2016. The print out of page from google

showing results of first page has been annexed to this application. It

is further submitted that the applicant inadvertently did not inform

the Advocate on record to request this Hon'ble Court to block the

names of the parties while passing the said Judgment.

6. Learned Advocate for the applicant has relied upon the

Judgment of the Court:

1. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber)Google Inc. Vs.

Agencia Espanola de Protection de Daton (APED) 13th

May, 2014.

2. Judgment of High Court of Orissa Subharanshu Rout @

Gugul vs. State of Odisha 23rd November, 2020.

Ganesh Lokhande 5 of 8 IA(St)-2743-20 in -CA-481-16.doc

3. Judgment of High Court of Karnataka Sri. Vasunathan vs.

Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka 23 rd January,

2017.

4. Judgment of Supreme Court of India Popular Muthiah vs.

State 4th July, 2006.

5. Judgment of High Court of Gujarat Dharamraj

Bhanushankar Dave vs. State of Gujarat.

6. Relevant Excerpts of Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019.

7. The FIR was quashed by this Court by Judgment dated

29th April, 2016. The FIR was registered on 19 th March, 2016. The

FIR was lodged by husband of the applicant. The Original Applicant

No. 2 and 3 were their children. In view of settlement, the

proceedings were quashed. This application has been preferred after

the period of four years from the date of the said Judgment. From

the pleadings it appears that all the parties to the said proceedings

are presently residing abroad. No request was made to the Court

while passing the said Judgment to block their names in the

Judgment. After lapse of four years, the contentions of the applicant

that it has prejudiced or likely to cause prejudice to them, cannot be

accepted. While passing the Judgment dated 29 th April, 2016 no

adverse remarks were made against either party to the said

Ganesh Lokhande 6 of 8 IA(St)-2743-20 in -CA-481-16.doc

proceedings.

8. The Judgment in the case of Google Inc. Vs. Agencia

Espanola de Protection de Daton (APED) (Supra) placed for

consideration by the learned Advocate for the applicants, cannot be

applied to the present proceedings. It was delivered in different

context altogether. It was regarding request for preliminary ruling

concerning the interpretation of Article 2(b) and (d), Article 4(1) (a)

and (c), Article 12 (b) and Sub-paragraph (a) of Article 14 of

Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

on 24th October, 1995 on the protection of individuals with regards to

processing of personal data and on the free moment of such data and

of Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European

Union. The Judgment in the case of Subhranshu Rout @ Gugul vs.

State of Odisha (Supra) was in respect to order passed by the Orissa

High Court in application under Section 439 of Cr.PC. The perusal of

the said order indicate that it was relating to alleged sexual

intercourse with the victim girl and recording intimacy and

uploading the same on facebook account created by the petitioner

therein. Hence, it was observed that the victim herself or the

prosecution may seek appropriate orders to protect the victim's

fundamental rights to privacy by seeking appropriate orders to have

such offensive post erased from the public platform irrespective of

Ganesh Lokhande 7 of 8 IA(St)-2743-20 in -CA-481-16.doc

ongoing Court process. In the case of Popular Muthiah vs. State

(Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observed that in

respect of incidental or supplemental power, evidently the High

Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction irrespective of the nature

of the proceeding. In Dharmaraj Bhanushankar Dave vs. State of

Gujarat (Supra) the petitioner therein had preferred Writ Petition

under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking directions to

enable permanent restraint of free public exhibition of the Judgment

and Order of the Court passed in the appeal over the internet caused

by the respondent. The petition was dismissed with liberty to take

resort to any other recourse if any other available in law. The

applicant has also relied upon the excerpts Personal Data Protection

Bill, 2019. the object of which was to provide for protection of

privacy of individuals, relating to their personal data, specify the

flow and usage of personal data, create a relationship of trust

between the persons and entities processing the personal data,

protect the rights of individuals whose personal data are processed,

to create a framework for organizational and technical measures in

processing of data, laying down norms for social media intermediary,

cross-border transfer, accountability of entities processing personal

data, remedies for unauthorised and harmful processing, and to

establish a Data Protection Authority of India for the said purposes

Ganesh Lokhande 8 of 8 IA(St)-2743-20 in -CA-481-16.doc

and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

9. All the decisions and the documents referred to here-in-

above relied upon by the applicants, are not applicable in this case.

10. The decision in the application for the quashing the FIR

which was settled by the parties, was delivered four years ago.

Restrictions as prayers for in prayer clause (a) cannot be granted.

Even a third party can get copy of the Judgment. This is not an

exceptional case where relief as prayed for can be granted. The

prayer for blocking the name made after a long gap of four years,

cannot be accepted. This is not a fit case to exercise the inherent

power under Section 482 of Cr.PC. Hence, the application is devoid

of merits and deserves to be dismissed.

11. Hence, I pass the following order:

ORDER

i) Interim Application (St) No. 2743 of 2020, is dismissed;

          ii)      No order as to costs.



          (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)                            (S. S. SHINDE, J.)