Section 354A Of IPC Is Not Compoundable Rather Is An Offence Against The Society: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a summoning order against the Applicant charged with sending objectionable videos and photos to Respondent no. 2 after she accepted his Facebook friend request. The Court directed the Applicant to refrain from such activities in the future and reckon how to acknowledge the sanctity of a friendly relationship. The Court further emphasised that an offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code is an offence against the society. 

Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma observed, “But, composition in itself should carry a lesson for the applicant that in future he would not engage himself in such types of offences and he should reckon how to acknowledge the sanctity of a friendly relationship”.

In para 7, the Court stated, “Since the offence under Section 354A of IPC is not compoundable and rather it’s an offence against the society...”

Advocate Dharmendra Barthwal appeared for the Applicant, Brief Holder Mamta Joshi appeared for the Respondent no.1/State and Advocate Paritosh Dalakoti appeared for the Respondent no. 2.

Respondent no. 2 filed a complaint under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 67(a) and 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (IT Act). Respondent no. 2 alleged that the Applicant has sent objectionable pictures and videos to Respondent no. 2, after Respondent no. 2 accepted the friend request on Facebook. The police officials prima facie found the allegations to be true and charge-sheeted the Applicant. A summoning order was thereby issued against the Applicant. The Applicant has thereafter filed before the High Court challenging the impugned order and charge sheet. The Applicant also filed a duly verified affidavit wherein Respondent No. 2 stated that she does not intend to prosecute the Applicant owing to the apology which has been expressed by the Applicant and, which has been accepted by Respondent No. 2.

The Court held that the offence under Section 354A of IPC was not compoundable, rather it was an offence against the society. Although the Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) owing to the fact that Respondent no. 2 did not wish to prosecute due to the presence of a close connection between the families of the parties involved and to maintain peace and harmony amongst the families.

The Court asserted, “Owing to the aforesaid statement made by the complainant respondent No. 2, this Court is of the view, that looking to the nature and gravity of offences and also coupled with the fact, that the parties have close affinity with one another, owing to their relationship which they have developed on Facebook, coupled with the fact, that the applicant was known to the family members of the complainant, in order to maintain peace and harmony amongst themselves, the Compounding Application is required to be considered by this Court in the exercise of its powers under Section 482 of CrPC. But, composition in itself should carry a lesson for the applicant that in future he would not engage himself in such types of offences and he should reckon how to acknowledge the sanctity of a friendly relationship”.

Additionally, the Court stated, “But, since the offence being not compoundable, the quashing of the aforesaid criminal proceedings would be subject to the conditions, as contained hereunder:- “1. That the applicant would be planting fifty trees in an area to be identified by the Horticulture Department of his District or Taluka to which he belongs, at his own cost. 2. The plantation of the trees would be made in the respective areas, from which he belongs, under the supervision of the Horticulture Department. 3. It is only upon the submission of the certificate of the planting of the fifty trees to be issued by the competent authority of the Horticulture Department, which has to be submitted before the competent court ceased with the criminal proceedings, its then only the proceedings would be dropped, in compliance of the today’s order passed in the present C482 applications. 4. If the aforesaid compliance is not made within a period of one month from today, it will automatically result into the revival of the aforesaid criminal proceedings. 5. If at any stage, any Officer of the Horticulture Department is found to have issued a fraudulent certificate, he would be criminally dealt with in accordance with law”.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order subject to the conditions mentioned above.

Cause Title: Neeraj Kirola v State of Uttarakhand And Anr.

Click here to read/download Order