SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shreeyansh Jain @ Allu Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 May, 2018

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRR-884-2018
(SHREEYANSH JAIN @ ALLU JAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

2
Jabalpur, Dated : 04-05-2018
Shri Parag S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri C.K. Mishra, learned GA for the respondent/State.

This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
Cr.P.C. has been filed to assail the order dated 04/12/2017, passed by

sh
the learned 3rd ASJ, Damoh in ST No.160/2017, whereby charges

e
have been framed against the petitioner for offences under Section 67

ad
of the IT Act, 2008 and Sections 201, 468, 506 507 of the IPC.

Pr
Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts necessary for the
disposal of the petition is that, a written complaint was made by the
a
hy

prosecutrix stating that, in her TATA Docomo Cell Phone
No.7772959280, she is using the facility of whatsapp. On 28/01/2017
ad

at about 8:30 to 9am, she received a phone call from Cell
M

No.7747881056 from an unknown person. He said to the prosecutrix
that, he has sent a photo in the whatsapp and asked her that, she should
of

look into that. The prosecutrix asked him his name and address but the
rt

unknown caller did not disclose.
ou

The prosecutrix when looked into the whatsapp message, she
found that a photograph of her and her Brahmcharya celibacy adopted
C

brother were mixed in such a fashion that, the photo seem to be of
h

objectionable one. A comment was also endorsed in the bottom,
ig

wherein it was mentioned that, the prosecutrix was being molested.
H

After sometime, she received a call from an unknown person
and threatened her to make the photo viral in the social sites. On
10/02/2017, the complainant’s cousin Rishab Jain having Mobile
No.93001198424 received a whatsapp message from the same caller
and hosted a photograph and threatened that, he will be make the
photo viral in the social sites. He was also threatened that, he should
not indulge in this connection otherwise, he will dealt with. The
complainant then informed the incident to her father Surendra Jain and
uncle Rishab Jain.

On this report, Crime No.155/17 has been lodged at Damoh,
Kotwali against Mobile No.7747881056 and after investigation,
charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. The learned 3rd
ASJ, Damoh vide order dated 11/12/2017 framing charges as
mentioned above.

On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that, the petitioner
has been falsely implicated. Offence under Section 67 of the IT Act is
not made out for there is no publication or transmit of any message,
which is lascivious or appeals to prurient interest or tend to deprave
and corrupt person who read the content. It is also contended that there

sh
is no cheating, therefore, offence under Section 468 of IPC is also not

e
made out. It is also contended that offence under Section 201 of IPC

ad
has been framed is also not made out against the petitioner. The

Pr
learned trial Court has also framed charges under Section 506 and 507
of IPC though there is no criminal intimidation. At the one hand, it is
a
stated that, the complainant has been allegedly intimidated whereas, it
hy

is also charged that the accused has intimidated without disclosing his
ad

own identity. Therefore, charges framed are liable to be set aside.

M

Learned counsel for the respondent/State vehemently opposing
the contentions submitted that, the learned trial Court has framed
of

charges as per the evidence available on record. Therefore, the same is
not called for any interference.

rt

Considered the submission, perused the record.
ou

On perusal of the police diary and the photo, it seems that, the
C

whatsapp photo message is material which appeals to prurient interest
h

and gives a wrong picture of the person shown in the photograph.
ig

So far as, the offence under Section 468 of the IPC is concerned.
H

It is found that, the forgery for the purpose of cheating has not been
committed. But prima facie evidence show forgery for the purpose of
harming reputation has been committed. Therefore, the electronic
record has been forged to harm the reputation of the complainant
knowing it that, it is likely to be used for that purpose, the whatsapp
photo was sent. Hence, instead of offence under Section 468 of IPC, in
the opinion of this Court, offence under Section 469 of IPC is prima
facie made out.

So far as, offence under Section 201 of IPC is concerned. It
would be appropriate to hold that, the offend tried to avoid from legal
punishment by taking precaution not to disclose the identity and
committed the crime. Therefore, the causing of disappearance of
evidence of the offences or giving the false information to screen the
offend is available on the record. Hence, prima facie offence under
Section 201 of IPC seem to be made out.

So far as, Sections 506 507 of IPC is concerned, it would be
appropriate to mention here that, threat was given to the
complainant/prosecutrix and also to her cousin to make viral the
photograph and thereby criminally intimidated the

sh
complainant/prosecutrix and also to Rishab Jain. It is also alleged that,

e
the cousin of the complainant/Rishab Jain was also threatened, that, he

ad
should not indulge in the Whatsup of controversy of the prosecutrix

Pr
otherwise, the accused will see him, this is also a criminal
intimidation. Therefore, framing of charge under Sections 506 507
a
of IPC does not call for any interference.

hy

In the result, the revision is partly allowed. Offence under
ad

Section 468 of IPC framed by the learned 3rd ASJ is set aside.

M

However, before parting with the case, it is observed that,
instead of offence under Section 468 of IPC, offence under Section
of

469 of IPC is prima facie made out. Therefore, the Court would take
appropriate steps in this regard.

rt
ou

(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO)
C

JUDGE
Digitally signed by
h

RASHMI RONALD VICTOR
ig

Date: 2018.05.07
15:31:26 -07’00’
H

RS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation