Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040006982024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./79/2024 Smti Nguyum Taipodia Wife of Bomli Basar, Liru Village, PO and PS Likabali, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 2 Ors represented by the PP of AP 2:B Boje Age: 0 Occupation : Investigating Officer Basar Police Station Leparada Arunachal Pradesh 3:Miss Gobom Doji Age: 32 Occupation : Daughter of Emar Doji resident of RWD Colony Basar PO and PS Basar Leparada District Arunachal Prades Advocate for the Petitioner : Regum Nabam, Rima Taipodia,T Tabo,Nending Kago,1 N Saha,A Linggi Page No.# 2/6 Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, K Gao,Honi Tana Tara,Nikita Danggen,K Chotton,Oken Duggong,Nikita Danggen BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 26-06-2025 Heard Mr. R. Nabam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR, dated 18.04.2024, lodged by the informant i.e. the respondent No. 3, who have stated, inter alia, that the petitioner has transmitted her nude picture in an electronic media and the same was received by the father of the informant. It is further stated in the FIR that on earlier occasion too, an FIR was lodged in respect of the same issue and the same was withdrawn on the undertaking submitted by the petitioner. 3. On receipt of the said FIR, the Police registered the case as Basar P.S. Case no. 15/2024 under Section 66(E) of the IT Act, 2000. 4. Mr. Nabam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the instant FIR was lodged in pursuance to a personal vengeance on the part of the informant. He stated that the husband of the petitioner and the informant was having an illicit relationship during 2022 and pursuant to that the nude photograph of the informant was kept on the mobile phone and, on a particular day, the same was sent to the father of the informant. He submitted that the ingredients of Section 66 (E) of IT Act are not Page No.# 3/6 attracted in this case as the petitioner did not transmit the nude photograph of the informant in the social media or in any media platform to be seen by the public or by the people at large. He further submitted that father of the informant asked for the photograph as a proof and as such, the petitioner sent the same and therefore, it would not attract Section 66(E) of the IT Act. 5. Mr. Nabam, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, to substantiate his point that the FIR is lodged with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance to the petitioner and in that case, criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue. 6. On the other hand, Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, after perusal of the record, has submitted that it is nowhere in the statement of the father of the informant that he has requested for any photograph. She also submitted that the statement of the petitioner, recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, reveals that she had transmitted the photograph of the informant to the father of the informant. She further submitted that ingredients of Section 66(E) is writ large in the FIR, which was lodged by the informant and hence, prays that no quashing of the FIR is called for in the instant case. 7. Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the informant/ respondent No. 3 has similarly submitted that the ingredients of Section 66(E) of the IT are present in the FIR. She also submitted that on earlier occasion also, the petitioner had threatened to make the photograph of the informant viral in the social media and has also threatened to send the same to the minor son of the informant. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Page No.# 4/6 9. It is a settled position of law that a quashing of an FIR can be entertained only if no cognizable offence is made out in the FIR in question or in the accompanying documents. 10. In the State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal (Supra) it is stated in clear terms that inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised only in cases of abuse of process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice. It was also observed by the Apex Court that if the allegation made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value, do not, prima facie constitute any offence or the accompanying material with the FIR do not discloses a cognizable offence, the same can be quashed by the High Court. 11. In the instant case, a bare reading of the FIR shows that the petitioner has transmitted the photograph of the informant through an electronic media to the father of the informant. It is noticed that on earlier occasion too, she has sent such photos and an FIR was lodged in pursuance thereof and the same was withdrawn on the undertaking given by the petitioner. 12. Section 66 (E) of the IT Act is reproduced herein below: “66E. Punishment for violation of privacy.–Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both. Explanation.–For the purposes of this section– (a) ―transmit‖ means to electronically send a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; (b) ―capture‖, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film or record by any means; (c) ―private area‖ means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast: Page No.# 5/6 (d) ―publishes‖ means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and making it available for public; (e) ―under circumstances violating privacy‖ means circumstances in which a person can have a reasonable expectation that– (i) he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of his private area was being captured; or (ii) any part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.” 13. A simple reading of the Section 66 (E) of the IT Act, 2000 makes it clear that whoever intentionally transmits an image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, by violating the privacy of that person, shall be booked under the said Section. Further, Section 66 (E) of the IT Act is a cognizable offence and the ingredients of the same are writ large in the FIR against the petitioner. 14. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the instant case comes within Clause-g of Paragraph 8.1 of the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal (Supra) that if any proceeding is instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance or due to some private and personal grudge, an FIR can be quashed, cannot be applied in the instant case, inasmuch as, even if it is considered that there are some personal grudge involved in the present case but the same cannot be allowed to continue over the years and be repeated over and over again. The conduct of the petitioner in sending the photograph to the father of the informant was not a pleasant conduct in the society that we live in. 15. In the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal (Supra), it was observed that if the allegation in the FIR are inherently improbable on the basis of which no person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, Page No.# 6/6 the FIR can be quashed, but here, in the present case, the allegations narrated in the FIR are not absurd neither inherently improbable which can be seen from the statement recorded by the Police under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 16. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this criminal petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant