10.apl.211.2021.Judgment.odt (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.211 OF 2021 Dr. Subhash s/o Paraji Darade, Aged about 42 Years, Occupation : Medical Officer, (Org Accused No.2) R/o. Mehkar Road, Sindkhedraja, District Buldhana. .... APPLICANT // VERSUS // 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Sindkhedraja, District Buldhana. 2. Devashree Hiralal Giri, Aged about 23 Years, Occupation : Service, (Org. Complainant) R/o. Chetana Nagar, Sindkhedraja, District Buldhana. (Presently residing at Dhangar Galli Sindkhedraja, Buldhana) ....NON-APPLICANTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. N. S. Khandewale, Advocate for applicant. Mr. N. H. Joshi, APP for non-applicant No.1/State. Mr. S. D. Chande, Advocate appointed as amicus for non-applicant No.2. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 12/02/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the non-applicant No.1/State. 2026:BHC-NAG:3308-DB 10.apl.211.2021.Judgment.odt (2) As non-applicant No.2 was not represented by the counsel, therefore, learned counsel Mr. S. D. Chande, who is present before the Court, is asked to assist the Court by appointing him as an amicus. 4. By this application, the applicant is seeking quashing of the FIR in connection with Crime No.197/2020 registered with Police Station Sindkhedraja, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Sections 354D and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing charge sheet No.71/2020. 5. The crime is registered on the basis of a report lodged by the non-applicant No.2 on an allegation that she is serving as Nurse. On 30.09.2020, when she was standing on a bus stand, one person approached to her and told her that he will do the work of her husband as he is working in a rural hospital and the present applicant is his relative. Thereafter, she started receiving the text message from the said person. She further alleged that though she was not responding to the phone calls and messages, he was calling her and thereafter she also received the mobile phone of the applicant also, who has disclosed to her that the other co-accused Ganesh Jaybhay is his relative and he is a good person and do not blacklist him. On 10.apl.211.2021.Judgment.odt (3) the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicant. 6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, who submitted that after accepting the allegation as it is, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the offence under Section 354D is attracted against him. Only allegation against the present applicant is that he made her call and disclosed that the other co-accused Ganesh Jaybhay is his relative and he is a good person, so this sentence itself is not sufficient to attract the offence of stalking. He also invited my attention towards the definition given under Section 354D of IPC will defines the offence of stalking. He submitted that none of the ingredients are fulfilled. Thus, no prima facie case is made out against the present applicant and therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the same and submitted that the intention of the present applicant can be gathered from the circumstance that he made a phone call to the non-applicant No.2 and therefore, the offence under Section 354D of IPC is made out. 8. Learned amicus also submitted that there were repeated calls by the present applicant which are sufficient to attract the offence punishable under Section 354D of IPC and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. 10.apl.211.2021.Judgment.odt (4) 9. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire investigation papers, only allegation against the present applicant is that once he has called and disclosed that the other co-accused Ganesh Jaybhay is his relative and he is a good person and not to blacklist him, except this allegation, there is no other allegation to attract the offence punishable under Section 354D of IPC. Admittedly, Section 354D is in respect of a modesty in the nature of the stalking. Admittedly, “modesty” is not defined in the IPC. However, it refers to indecent propriety of a woman and conduct. Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine. 10. Section 354D of the IPC defines the offence of "stalking" and it lays down that in order that this offence is committed, there must be following of a woman and contacting her or attempting to contact a woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such a woman or there should be monitoring of the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication. 10.apl.211.2021.Judgment.odt (5) 11. Here in the present case, except the allegation that once the present applicant has made her phone call and disclosed to her that the other co-accused is a good person is not sufficient to attract the offence punishable under Section 354D of IPC. 12. By applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, which reads as under: “(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just 10.apl.211.2021.Judgment.odt (6) conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 13. No prima facie is made out against the present applicant and therefore, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order: ORDER (i) The application is allowed. (ii) The FIR in connection with Crime No.197/2020 registered with Police Station Sindkhedraja, District Buldhana for the offence punishable under Section 354D and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing charge sheet No.71/2020, are hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of the present applicant. The application is disposed of. (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate.