Bombay High Court Rejects Plea to Quash FIR for Social Media Stalking

The Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench has dismissed an application seeking to quash an FIR and ongoing proceedings against a man accused of stalking a woman through objectionable posts on Facebook. The decision, pronounced on December 2, 2025, underscores that such online actions can constitute offences under Sections 354 and 354-D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), even in the context of prior relationships.

Case Overview

In Criminal Application (APL) No. 522 of 2020, applicant Tukaram Raskar, a 30-year-old private employee from Pune, approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash FIR No. 0039/2020 registered at Channi Police Station, Akola, and the related Regular Criminal Case No. 255/2024 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patur, Akola. The charges stem from allegations by non-applicant Rupali Ramesh Adhau, a 26-year-old homemaker now residing in Buldhana district.

Adhau, who married Sachin Jumale in December 2019, alleged that she met Raskar on Facebook around two years before her marriage. She claimed he proposed marriage, which she rejected, leading to his annoyance. According to the complaint, Raskar posted defamatory and objectionable material on her Facebook account on multiple occasions—January 10, 2019; June 10, 2019; and September 30, 2019—to harass and defame her. Additionally, on July 31, 2018, just before her wedding, Raskar allegedly visited her home with a bottle of poison, threatening suicide, though no police action was taken after he apologized.

The court, comprising Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nandesh S. Deshpande, heard the matter finally on November 17, 2025, and reserved judgment before pronouncing it on December 2, 2025.

Arguments from Both Sides

Raskar's counsel, Shri Sunil Kulkarni (holding brief for Shri S.D. Chande), argued that the duo had a consensual relationship since 2014-2015, which evolved into a love affair with marriage discussions involving families. He claimed Adhau and her relatives demanded Rs. 5 lakhs and 5 acres of land as dowry, and after he lent them Rs. 2.88 lakhs on marriage assurances, they refused to refund it or proceed with the wedding. This led Raskar to file a separate complaint (MCA No. 484/2018) against Adhau and her family at Baramati for cheating (Section 420 IPC), criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC), and related offences, which remains pending. The counsel contended that the FIR allegations were false, vexatious, and lacked ingredients for harassment under Sections 354 and 354-D IPC.

Opposing the plea, Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. S.S. Dhote for the State of Maharashtra highlighted witness statements recorded in the investigation, including Adhau's. She noted that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was initially added to the FIR but later deleted by the court. Dhote argued that prima facie evidence supported the charges, and quashing at this stage would undermine legitimate prosecution.

Legal Principles and Precedents Applied

The bench analyzed Sections 354 IPC (assault or criminal force to outrage a woman's modesty) and 354-D IPC (stalking, including monitoring a woman's online activity despite disinterest). It observed that posting objectionable content on social media like Facebook could qualify as stalking, especially since Adhau is married and residing with her husband.

The court distinguished between prior relationships or financial disputes—which require trial for resolution—and the act of posting defamatory material, which cannot be justified. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688, the bench emphasized that powers under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and not to stifle genuine prosecutions. It stated: "Assuming that the non-applicant No.2 had some relation prior to her marriage with the applicant, and even assuming that the applicant had lent money to her on assurance of marriage, that cannot be construed as giving a license to the applicant herein to post some objectionable post over the social site."

This approach aligns with precedents cautioning against using inherent powers to preempt trials where prima facie cases exist, particularly in offences against women involving societal harm.

Court's Reasoning and Excerpts

Perusing the FIR and charge-sheet, Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande, delivering the judgment, noted: "Posting of a post on a social site i.e. Facebook, would amount to committing an offence as contemplated under the above sections." The bench rejected quashing, holding that financial and relational aspects are evidentiary matters for trial, not grounds for dismissal at the threshold.

Final Decision and Implications

The application was rejected, allowing the proceedings to continue before the trial court. This ruling reinforces the applicability of stalking laws to cyber harassment, signaling to courts that prior consensual interactions do not excuse post-rejection online misconduct. For victims of social media abuse, it affirms the threshold for initiating action, while reminding accused parties that unrelated disputes cannot derail harassment prosecutions. The decision may influence similar cases involving digital platforms, emphasizing evidence-based trials over premature quashing.