The Gujarat High Court quashed criminal proceedings involving allegations of obscene content circulation against a husband, citing mutual settlement and holding that further continuation of the case would amount to harassment. The matter arose from an FIR lodged by the wife, and the Court observed that “continuance of trial would be a futile exercise in light of the amicable resolution".
The case involved a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife. Following a breakdown in their relationship, the husband allegedly uploaded obscene photographs of his wife on WhatsApp and Instagram, accompanied by offensive comments. The wife subsequently lodged an FIR alleging offences under the Information Technology Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
However, during the pendency of the proceedings, the parties resolved their differences. The complainant-wife, appearing in person before the Court, confirmed the settlement and stated she no longer had any grievance against the petitioner.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute was purely private in nature and had arisen from matrimonial discord. It was argued that there was no surviving issue between the parties, and the continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no purpose. The petitioner emphasized that the allegedly obscene material had been removed, and a mutual resolution had been reached. An affidavit from the complainant affirming the settlement was also placed on record.
The Court took into consideration the affidavits filed, the personal presence of the complainant, and the fact that the dispute had been amicably resolved. Referring to precedents laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, and others, the Court reiterated that where disputes are private and settled between the parties, quashing is appropriate to prevent the misuse of the judicial process.
The Court observed, “As the dispute is private in nature and the complainant has confirmed settlement, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. Further continuance would only result in unnecessary harassment to the petitioner and amount to futile exercise.” However, noting the petitioner’s conduct of circulating obscene images on social media, the Court expressed disapproval and stated, “Though the matter stands settled, considering the petitioner’s conduct of uploading obscene photographs of his wife, a cost of ₹25,000/- is imposed to deter such acts.”
The High Court allowed the application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, quashing the FIR registered with Ghatlodiya Police Station, Ahmedabad City, and all consequential proceedings. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit ₹25,000/- with the State Legal Services Authority within one week.
Additionally, it ordered that if the petitioner was in custody and not required in connection with any other case, he should be released forthwith.
Case Title: Sahdev Ranchodbhai Brahman vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case No.: Special Criminal Application (For Consent Quashing) No. 10648 of 2025
Coram: Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. K.T Beladiya
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Manan Maheta
Picture Source :
