DATTATRYA SHAMRAO KADAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The apprehending arrest in connection with F.I.R. bearing Crime No.51 of 2023 at Murgud police station for offences punishable under Ss. 292 , 293 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ' IPC ') and 66(E) and 67 (A) of the Information Technology Act , 2000 for short ' I.T. Act '), the Applicant has invoked Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short ' Cr.P.C .').

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is as under: Mr Vikas Dattatraya Badave, Police Inspector at Murgud police station, lodged F.I.R. on 31/3/2023, alleging that the local newspapers and media published news about "fake and bogus doctor engaging in obscene and indecent behaviour with the women" The news articles were published based on anonymous letters about the incidents of exploitation of various women. Additionally, there were some rumours and news circulated in the city that one bogus and fake doctor was making video clips and taking photos of indecent acts which were being circulated among the city. The local residents of the city also sought action against the doctor. On 29/3/2023, at 11:00 am, the residents of the city approached the concerned police station with the request letter demanding action against the bogus and fake doctor who had allegedly taken advantage of the helplessness of the women and had taken obscene and indecent videos and photographs of the various women. On the complaint and the request letters made to the investigating agency, the police staff, along with lady police officers and the Nirbhaya Squad, tried to reach out to the victim women. However, before the registration of F.I.R., the investigating officer could not get the information from the victim. Nevertheless, based on the available material, the respondent lodged a report against the Applicant for making obscene videos and photographs with the women and an unknown person for circulation of obscene videos and photographs. The Applicant, therefore, approached learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, by way of Application under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C., which came to be rejected by order dated 17 th April 2018. Aggrieved thereby, the Applicant has filed the present Application under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) According to the Advocate for the Applicant, the Applicant has no role whatsoever in relation to the acts alleged in the F.I.R. According to him, the Applicant himself is a victim of circulation of obscene videos and photographs as no person would cause of publishing of such obscene videos and photographs containing himself. According to him, some third person helping the Applicant to recharge his mobile and update software misused the data in the cell phone, and the Applicant is in no way responsible for publishing lascivious material. According to him, none of the ingredients of an offence under Sec. 66 (E) and 67 of the I.T. Act , Ss. 292 and 293 of IPC have been made out. The Applicant has been falsely implicated.