The court established that while allegations of stalking under Section 354D IPC were unfounded, offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC warranted the continuation of trial.

ORDER

This petition is filed for quashment of C.C.No.5168 of 2018 registered against the accused for the offence under Sections 354D , 504 and 506 IPC.

2. The facts in brief as per the charge sheet are as under: On 07.06.2018 at 10.00 a.m, the de-facto complainant has filed a complaint stating that her son and daughter are in Phillipins for study and work. There are some issues between one Singaraju and her son in Philliphins. The petitioner, who is the brother of that Singaraju, has threatened the de-facto complainant and her husband over phone and also abused them in filthy language. The petitioner has come to Kirana shop when her husband was in the store and has taken photographs of her husband and sent them to the de-facto complainant’s son and daughter in Philliphins and sent a message that they will kill them. The petitioner has also sent audio message to the defacto complainant while abusing the de-facto complainant’s daughter in filthy language. It is also mentioned in the complaint that on 27.05.2018 at 10.10. p.m., the de-facto complainant has called the petitioner to enquire about the audio message sent to her in respect of her daughter, but the petitioner has abused in filthy language, which cannot be heard and repeated and further he also threatened her that he will kill her husband.

3. Police have registered a case in Crime No.432 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 354D , 504 and 506 IPC. During the course of investigation the statements of the de-facto complainant and her husband were recorded and filed the charge sheet alleging that the petitioner has committed the offences under Section 354D , 504 and 506 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this petition on the following grounds:

i. There are disputes between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant’s brother in respect of money to be paid to the consultants for sending the daughter and son of the de-facto complainant to Phillipins.

ii. An altercation and heated arguments took place between the petitioner’s brother and son of the de-facto complainant in Phillipins. Some of the Phillipins have organized a mob of students and attacked the brother of the petitioner in Cebu city. The brother of the petitioner received injuries, then local police have intervened. The son of the de-facto complainant and the mob organized by him have demanded the brother of the petitioner (Gnanasekar) to pay 22,000 pisos i.e., Phillipins currency when he was in tourist police cell. A complaint is filed stating that the brother of the de-facto complainant has swindled 22,000 pisos on which a criminal case has been filed and the de-facto complainant has realized that the criminal case filed by her son in Phillipins is taking reverse turn and son of the de-facto complainant was likely to arrest by the Phillipins police, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner.

iii. This petition is filed falsely in order to compromise the issue in respect of payment of 22,000 pisos by the de-facto complainant’s son in Phillipins. There is no material in the charge sheet and statement of witnesses was recorded only of husband and no independent witnesses are available. The petitioner is a student of 24 years and the de-facto complainant is aged of 45 years and the allegation that the petitioner has been staking her to outrage her modesty is baseless. Even if the allegations in the entire charge sheet are accepted, no offence is made out. There are no overt acts to fasten the liability of stalking and prayed the Court to quash the criminal case.

4. Section 354D IPC runs as under:

“354D. Stalking.--(1) Any man who--

(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a cl