Justice Sanjeev Narula, delivering the verdict on May 27, criticised the conduct of the accused, who had allegedly threatened a minor girl with the dissemination of her private photographs if she did not meet his financial demands.
"Such behaviour reflected a gross misuse of digital platforms and an alarming disregard for consent and personal dignity," the court observed.
It further noted that the allegations were “undoubtedly serious”, involving charges of harassment and exploitation of a minor girl. The court said the case reflected “a pattern emblematic of the darker undercurrents of the social media age, where technology is misused to exert control, induce fear, and compromise dignity.”
Balancing justice and victim’s right to closure
Justice Narula acknowledged that under ordinary circumstances, such allegations would not warrant quashing of the FIR. However, the law also recognises the importance of the victim's right to privacy, dignity, and emotional closure.
"The complainant has unequivocally expressed her desire to move on from this chapter, and has articulated the social and emotional burden that the continued pendency of this criminal case may place upon her, particularly in the context of her future prospects, including marriage," the court stated.
Conditions for FIR quashing
The court directed the petitioner to perform one month of community service at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital during June. A certificate confirming the completion of the service is to be filed with the registry.
Any absenteeism, default, or misconduct during the course of service would require the medical superintendent to alert the concerned police officer. In such a case, the matter may be brought back before the court for appropriate orders, including the possible revival of the FIR.
In addition, the petitioner was ordered to pay Rs 50,000 to the Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a senior student at the complainant’s school, had allegedly asked her for private photographs in 2017, claiming such exchanges were common in romantic relationships. After a disagreement, they ceased communication.
In February 2018, he allegedly resumed contact and demanded Rs 6,000 while threatening to circulate her photos online. The complainant claimed she made several payments under duress. Later, in April 2018, a friend of the petitioner also allegedly blackmailed her, prompting another payment.
An FIR was eventually registered in 2019, including charges of voyeurism, criminal intimidation, and assault under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with sexual harassment under the POCSO Act.
The court also took on record the petitioner’s statement asserting that he had not retained any of the private photographs.
(With PTI inputs)
About The Author
Comment List