IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that consent is irrelevant in cases involving minors, and the validity of FIRs must adhere to procedural requirements.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Applicant Ashu @ Anjani Chaturvedi is in judicial custody in Case Crime/FIR No. 480 of 2022, under Sections 376, 354D of IPC and Sections 3/4, 13/14 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the applicant forcibly established physical relations with the victim, a young girl of 17 years, made her video, took photographs and thereafter, started uploading those intimate photographs on social media. He also uploaded the telephone number of the victim on the social media sites. The victim once attempted to commit suicide.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit the FIR per se is not maintainable. He would submit that on 08.04.2022, a report was earlier lodged by the father of the victim at Chowki Fawara Chowk, Police Station Nehru Colony, Dehradun, which was amicably settled on 26.04.2022. It is argued that the report given by the father of the victim on 08.04.2022 is the first FIR. Therefore, instant FIR is not maintainable. He would refer to the judgment in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerela and others, (2001) 6 SCC 181.

5. In the case of T.T. Antony (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held that second FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) is not valid.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant would also argue that had the incident with regard to the physical relation been ever committed by the applicant, it could have been reported by the father of the victim on 08.04.2022, when he lodged first report. Learned counsel would submit that the victim was above 17 years of age, where as the applicant was also a young boy of 22 years of age. The relationship was consensual and whatever was uploaded were not only the photographs of the victim, but it contains the photograph of the applicant also.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the victim is a minor. She has supported the prosecution case during trial. The applicant established physical relations forcibly with her and thereafter, uploaded those photographs, blackmailed and threatened her.

8. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial or in any other proceedings.

9. The proposition of law with regard to the second FIR is well settled.

10. In the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami Vs. Union of India and others, 2020 SCC Online 462, the law has further been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in para 30, the Hon’ble Court observed that “this Court held that the relevant enquiry is whether two or more FIRs relate to the same incident or relate to incidents which form part of the same transactions. If the Court were to conclude in the affirmative, the subsequent FIRs are liable to be quashed. However, where the subsequent FIR relates to different incidents or crimes or is in the form of a counterclaim, investigation may proceed.”

11. With regard to the report dated 08.04.2022, which was lodged at Chowki Fawara Chowk, Police Station Nehru Colony, Dehradun, the Court had called a report from the Police. The Police has reported that on that date an oral complaint was made by the father of the victim before the concerned police station.

12. A short affidavit has been filed by the Deepak Singh Rawat, Sub Inspector on 26.12.2023 enclosing therewith a compromise, which relates to the factum of uploading the photographs only on the social media sites. The compromise records that the applicant had then admitted his guilt and assured that he would not repeat it in future.

13. The short affidavit filed by the Deepak Singh Rawat, Sub Inspector establishes that when oral report with regard to uploading of photographs of the vict