Familiarity is not a justification for sharing obscene pictures of a woman on social media: Punjab and Haryana High Court
A man has no right to circulate obscene or indecent pictures of a woman on social media and try to defame her in society just because they know each other for a long time. Punjab and Haryana High Court gave this judgment in the case of Gagandeep Sharma vs. State of Punjab [CRM-M-44273 of 2020] presided over by the single bench of Hon’ble Justice Avneesh Jhingan. In the above-cited case, Petitioner filed a petition for anticipatory bail u/s 354, 354-A of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 66 of the Information and Technology Act because an FIR had been lodged against him for circulating photographs of a woman on WhatsApp twice and for sending offensive messages on her number.  And when the woman informed her parents, the petitioner tried to forcefully drag her and did obscene acts, and threatened her thereafter. It was observed that the woman and the petitioner were co-villagers. It was contended that both the parties tried to do the settlement/compromise in 2019 in the earlier bail petition. And the present FIR was counterblast for the previous one which led to a delay in filing the FIR. Counsels argued that the petitioner uploaded questionable and objectionable matters on WhatsApp. But the petitioner’s counsel argued that u/s 354-A, offences are bailable. HC Bench noted that just because both of them had known each other, doesn’t entitle him to misuse the social media and circulate objectionable material.  HC contended that delay in filing the FIR isn’t fatal and because it was investigated by the Cyber Cell, the delay was obvious. And since there was no date on the images, it cannot be assumed that the pictures were earlier in time and it isn’t a permit to the petitioner for defaming the girl in the society. Referring to the previous judgments by Allahabad High Court and Himachal Pradesh High Court, it was observed that in similar circumstances, FIR had been quashed for the accused who had posted naked pictures of his wife on social media. And thus the court had stated it’s a heinous crime to post such pictures of the spouse which hampers the mutual trust and confidence in the relationship.
 on 25 01 CRM M 442720 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M 442720Date of Decision: 05.01.2021Gagandeep Sharma....PetitionerVersusState of Punjab ....RespondentCORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGANPresent: Mr. Inderjit Sharma Advocate for the petitioner.Ms. Samina Dhir DAG Punjab.Mr. Ritesh Pandey Advocate for the complainant. Avneesh Jhingan J.to submit that the prosecutrix had relations with the petitioner. It is contended that uncle of the petitioner lodged FIR No. 69dated 13.6.2018 under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station SadarGurdaspur against the parents of the prosecutrix the matter was compromisedduring the pendency of bail petition in this Court in 2019 and the present FIRis a counter blast. The argument is that there is delay of three months inregistering the FIR.Though the complainant has not been impleaded as party butMr. Ritesh Pandey Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of the complainantand submits that the matter was investigated by the Cyber Crime and it was onreceiving the report that FIR was registered hence there was delay of threemonths.Learned counsel for the State submits that during theinvestigation it has been found that the petitioner has uploaded certain materialon whatsapp which is objectionable.The fact that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were known to eachother does not entitle the petitioner to misuse the social media and circulatedobjectionable material. Reliance on photographsdoes notenhance the case of the petitioner. There is no date on the photographs andmoreover even assuming that these photographs were earlier in time this is notenough to permit the petitioner to malign the image of a girl. The allegationthat the present FIR is a counter blast to the earlier FIR registered by the uncleof the petitioner prima facie does not appear to be correct. The matter wascompromised way back in 2019 the present FIR is of 9.12.2020. It is verydifficult to swallow such allegations would be made as a counter blast. Thereis another aspect of the matter during investigation it is found thatobjectionable material was used by petitioner on social media.The delay in registering the FIR will not itself be fatal. The matterwas investigated by the Cyber Cell and on receiving the report the FIR wasregistered. on 25 01 CRM M 442720 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that apart from Section354 A IPC the offences are bailable. This would not be stage to decide themerits of Section 354 A IPC. Considering the seriousness of the allegationsand this being a case where custodial interrogation would be necessary torecover the material available with the petitioner against the prosecutrix nocase is made out for anticipatory bail.The petition is dismissed.(AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE05.01.2021mk Whether speaking reasoned YesWhether reportable Yes 