Bombay High Court: While deciding an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), the Division Bench of Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nandesh S. Deshpande*, JJ., held that posting objectionable material on a social site such as Facebook would amount to committing offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354-D of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The Court observed that even if there had been a prior relationship or financial assistance extended on the assurance of marriage, such circumstances cannot be construed as giving a license to post objectionable content online . Emphasising that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), are to be sparingly used and not as a tool to stifle legitimate prosecution, the Court rejected the application seeking quashing of the FIR.
Background:
The complaint was lodged by a married woman who stated that she had become acquainted with the applicant via Facebook prior to her marriage and that he had proposed marriage, which she refused. On this refusal, objectionable material was posted on her Facebook account on different occasions, allegedly to defame and cause harassment. It was further alleged that the applicant had once been to her house with a bottle of poison and threatened to commit suicide and thereafter continued stalking her by posting defamatory and objectionable material, thereby causing hurdles and disturbance in her marital life.
It was contended in response that the relationship had been ongoing since 2014—2015 and that financial help amounting to Rs 2,88,000 had been extended in good faith on the assurance of marriage. It was further submitted that demands of Rs 5,00,000 along with land were made, and when these were not fulfilled, disputes arose. It was asserted that the allegations in the FIR were false, vexatious, and lacked the essential ingredients to constitute a crime of harassment.
The State, however, opposed these submissions, noting that the statement of the complainant and several other witnesses had been recorded, and that there was a prima facie case against the applicant.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that Section 354 IPC contemplates assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, while Section 354-D IPC speaks about stalking and includes monitoring the use of internet or electronic communication. It was noted that posting objectionable material on a social site amount to committing an offence under these provisions.
The Court emphasised that even assuming the married lady had some relation prior to her marriage with the applicant, and even assuming that the applicant had lent money to her on assurance of marriage, that cannot be construed as giving a license to the applicant herein to post some objectionable post over the social site. It was further highlighted that these aspects are matters to be decided at the stage of evidence in a full-fledged trial.
The Court referred to the judgment in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, reiterating that powers under Section 482 CrPC are to be sparingly used and cannot be a tool to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
Therefore, the Court observed that overwhelming material existed at least at a prima facie stage, and therefore, this was not a case to quash the proceedings at the threshold.
[Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application (Apl)No. 522 of 2020, decided on 02-12-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Sunil Kulkarni, Advocate h/f S.D. Chande, Advocate
For the State: S.S. Dhote, APP
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
