Case Brief
Name of Court: Uttarakhand High Court
Parties: Neeraj Kirola v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
Case No.: C482 No. 1437 of 2023
Date of Order: 19.07.2023
Bench: Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Topic: Planting trees in lieu of compounding offences under Sec. 354A, IPC, Sec. 67A and Sec. 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008
Facts: X (Petitioner) sent a friend request to Y (Respondent No. 2) on Facebook. On Y’s accepting the request, X allegedly sent Y indecent photos and videos that were objectionable. Y filed a complaint, and an FIR was registered for offences under Sec. 354A, IPC, Sec. 67A and Sec. 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. After investigation, charge sheet was filed, and summoning order was issued to X. X filed the instant petition challenging the said charge sheet and summoning order.
Issue: Whether the charge sheet and summoning order pertaining to offences under Sec. 354A, IPC, Sec. 67A and Sec. 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 are liable to be quashed?
Law:
Sec. 354A, IPC deals with punishment for the offence of sexual harassment.
Sec. 67 and Sec. 67A, IT Act deals with the offence of and the punishment for the offence of publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form.
Analysis:
Y made the following submission:
- X had issued an apology and therefore, Y was not keen on prosecuting the matter.
Z (Respondent No. 1 – Government Advocate) made the following submissions:
- Offence under Sec. 354A, IPC is not compoundable u/s. 320, CrPC, although the offences under Sec. 67A and Sec. 67, IT Act are compoundable under Sec. 77A, IT Act.
Conclusion:
The court took the following factors into consideration:
- X has extended his apology to Y and such apology has been accepted by Y
- Y does not intend to prosecute X
- X is known the Y and her family members
- To maintain peace and harmony amongst the parties
The court compounded the offences in exercise of its powers under Sec. 482, CrPC. However, the court was of the opinion that the composition needed should a carry a lesson for X so that he does not engage in similar conduct in future. Moreover, considering that the offence under Sec. 354A was not compoundable, the court criminal proceedings were quashed subject to the following conditions:
- X would plant 50 trees in an area to be identified by the Horticulture Dept. of his district or taluka to which he belongs, at his own cost
- X would plant the trees under the supervision of the Horticulture Dept.
- Certificate of planting of 50 trees issued by the competent authority of the Horticulture Dept. to be submitted before the competent court ceased with criminal proceedings for the proceedings to be dropped.
- The court order to be complied with within one month from the date of the order, failing which the proceedings would automatically revive.
- In the event the certificate issued by the Horticulture Dept. is found to be fraudulent, officer issuing such certificate shall criminally be dealt with in accordance with law.
By – Divya R, Trainer & External Member, Chief Research & Development Officer