Objectionable Online Posts Defaming Woman May Attract Offences Of 'Outraging Modesty' & 'Stalking' Under IPC: Bombay High Court

A Bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande added a prior relationship or a financial dispute does not grant a man a 'license' to post objectionable content to harass a woman online.

The Bench thus dismissed an application u/s 482 CrPC seeking to quash an FIR as well the consequent criminal proceedings pertaining to Section 354 and Section 354-D IPC.

Case in brief

A complaint was lodged by a married woman alleging she had become acquainted with the applicant two years prior to her marriage with a different person (marriage took place in 2019) and that the applicant had proposed marriage to her, which she refused.

She further alleged that following this refusal, the applicant got annoyed and with an intent to defame her, posted objectionable material on Facebook account on multiple occasions in 2019.

The complainant further alleged that a day before her wedding, the applicant arrived at her house with a bottle of poison and threatened to commit suicide. She also alleged that the applicant was stalking her by posting defamatory material and was trying to cause hurdles and disturbance in her marital life.

On the other hand, it was the applicant's case the friendship between the parties had culminated into a love affair ongoing since 2014-2015 and while the marriage was initially finalized between the families, but subsequently, the woman and her relatives started demanding money.

The applicant claimed that he had lent the woman's family a total of Rs. 2,88,000 in good faith and on the assurance of marriage and when he demanded the money back, her relatives abused him and refused to solemnize the marriage.

He also pointed out that he had already filed a private complaint against the woman and her relatives for cheating and intimidation, which is presently pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Baramati.

Thus, it was argued that the present FIR was false, vexatious and a counter-blast to his complaint.

The state counsel, on the other hand, submitted that there is a prima facie case against the applicant and thus the application is liable to be rejected.

HC's observations

Having perused the allegations in the FIR and taking into account Sections 354 & 354-D IPC, the Court, at the outset, found that these provisions stood attracted in the present case.

It observed thus:

"…if we peruse the First Information Report in question and the post to which their is an objection, it can certainly be said that posting of a post on a social site i.e. Facebook, would amount to committing an offence as contemplated under the above sections".

Further, noting that the woman is a married lady residing with her husband, it said that even if she had some relation prior to her marriage with the applicant, the same cannot be construed as giving a license to him to post some objectionable post over the social site.

The Court added that the aspect relating to the financial help referred by the applicant and the applicant having a relationship with him prior to the marriage are matters which are to be decided at the stage of evidence in a full fledged trial.

Thus, observing that powers under Section 482 are to be sparingly used and cannot be a tool to stifle a legitimate prosecution, the bench refused to quash the criminal proceedings.

For context, Section 354 IPC, which is generally understood to be associated with physical criminal force to outrage a woman's modesty, reads thus:

"354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her her modesty, - Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, [shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine]”