Cart is empty 
Facts of the Case:
On 24.12.2016, a complaint was lodged at Haridevpur Police Station under Sections 354C and 354D of the IPC. The complaint alleged that the Petitioner had repeatedly followed the complainant and her daughter and secretly captured their photographs on various occasions. The specific incident that triggered the complaint occurred on 22.12.2016 when the complainant noticed the petitioner photographing her from his residence while she was standing on the road in front of her building. Fearing misuse of the photographs, the complainant filed the complaint. Following the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner, who was then granted bail.
Contention of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that the dispute at hand was essentially civil, concerning property issues rather than criminal conduct. He argued that the criminal proceedings were initiated to apply pressure in a civil matter and to harass the petitioner. He emphasized that the charge sheet lacked substantial evidence and referenced case law indicating that criminal proceedings should be quashed if they are found to be vexatious or motivated by personal vendetta.
Contention of the Respondent:
The Respondent argued that the existence of a civil dispute does not preclude the possibility of a criminal offense. She stated that the petitioner frequently followed her and her daughter during their outings to school, the market, or private tuition, causing her distress. She also claimed that the petitioner took their photographs on various occasions using his camera and phone, which she had reported to the police.
She further pleaded that a complaint disclosing a cognizable offense should not be quashed solely because a civil remedy might also be available. They emphasized that the High Court should generally refrain from exercising its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash proceedings unless there is a clear abuse of the legal process.
Court’s Observation:
The Court observed that the complaint alleged actions by the petitioner that could potentially fall under Sections 354C (voyeurism) and 354D (stalking) of the IPC. For an offense under Section 354C, it must be established that the petitioner captured images of a woman engaged in a private act, while Section 354D requires proof of persistent and unwanted contact or monitoring. The Court noted that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not prima facie establish the commission of these offenses as defined by the essential elements required.
The HC stated “In the case at hand the allegation levelled against the petitioner/accused is that the accused secretly captured complainant’s photographs from his residence while she was standing on the road in front of her residential building. It is also alleged when complainant noticed flash then accused entered into his building. Such allegations do not attract any of the penal provision either under Section 354C or 354D of the IPC in respect of the discussion made hereinabove relating to the essential elements required to constitute those offences.”
After considering both parties’ arguments, the Court noted that to prove offenses under Sections 354C and 354D, the alleged acts must occur in a public place, as these provisions are designed to protect women’s modesty in public settings.
Court’s Decision:
The Court decided to quash the proceedings in Haridevpur Police Station under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., as the allegations did not meet the criteria for the offenses charged. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, and the proceedings were quashed.
