Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30507 (BOM)

PRAMOD ASHOK SANAP v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

APPLN/3791/2025 · 2025-10-10

Shri Hiten S Venegavkar, Smt Vibha Kankanwadi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 947 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3791 OF 2025 Pramod Ashok Sanap, Age 25 yrs., Occ. Student, R/o Malegaon Chakla, Tq. Shirur (Kasar), Dist. Beed. … Claimant … Versus … 1 The State of Maharashtra Through Investigating Officer, Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad. 2 X.Y.Z. … Respondents ... Mr. V.B. Kale, Advocate for applicant Mrs. P.V. Diggikar, APP for respondent No.1 ... CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATE : 10th OCTOBER, 2025 ORDER : . Present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code 2025:BHC-AUG:28942-DB 2 947_Cri.Appln_3791_2025 of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of the proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No.75/2024 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, arising out of First Information Report vide Crime No.234/2023 dated 01.08.2023 registered with Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, for the offence punishable under Sections 354-D, 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also for quashing the issue process order passed on 26.02.2024 against applicant in said proceedings. 2 Heard learned Advocate Mr. V.B. Kale for applicant and learned APP Mr. A.R. Kale for respondent No.1. 3 There is no necessity to issue notice to respondent No.2. 4 Learned Advocate for applicant has taken us through the entire charge sheet and submits that allegations made in First Information Report are not supported by evidence. Though the mobile phone of applicant has been seized; yet there is nothing in the charge sheet which would show that he had forwarded the obscene/private photos of informant and applicant and chats to another friend of informant. The supplementary statement of informant appears to be subsequent to statements of parents of informant. The statement of informant under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is cryptic. The evidence that has been collected is not sufficient to 3 947_Cri.Appln_3791_2025 attract the ingredients of Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code. 5 Per contra, learned APP submits that entire investigation is over and charge sheet is also filed. Cognizance of same has also been taken by trial Court. Under such circumstance, this is not a fit case where this Court should entertain the proceedings. 6 Here, we are required to consider the story that has been put forward by respondent No.2. She states that she was knowing the original accused Samadhan since last one year and he is her friend. They used to talk on mobile phone. She states that around 7.30 p.m. on 30.07.2023 accused Samadhan gave phone call to her and told that he is having private photos of herself and him and then threatened to make those photos viral, so also chatting would be shown to her father and also to the person with whom her marriage would be settled. He asked her to come to meet him, by giving threat to make those photos viral. The informant states that around 10.42 a.m. on 29.07.2023 her father had given phone call to accused Samadhan and told him that he should not trouble his daughter. But, at that time the accused Samadhan spoke arrogantly and told that even police cannot do anything in the matter. 7 In the statement of informant under Section 161 of the Code of 4 947_Cri.Appln_3791_2025 Criminal Procedure it is specifically stated that present applicant had threatened her that if she did not listen him he would forward the chatting, photos and screenshots to one Vishal. Thus, it can be prima facie seen that there is some role attributed to present applicant. The fact that may be required to be gone into by trial Court would be, as to whether the case can be gathered under Section 354-D of the Indian Penal Code stalking or under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code or under the Information Technology Act. The said fact can be considered even at the time of framing charge and, therefore, we find that no case is made out for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Application stands rejected at the threshold. ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd