ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.26 of 2022 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla, registered for the offences under Sections 354D, 504, 506, 385, 420 and 408 read with 34 I.P.C.
2. Heard Ms. R. Madhavi Latha, learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. In spite of granting several opportunities, respondent No.2 failed to advance arguments.
1
4. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 worked in ELDAAS Technologies Private Limited and that while working in the said Company, she has transferred Rs.5,00,000/- to her account with a dishonest intention and misappropriated the amount. Accused No.1 is the wife of accused No.3. Accused No.1 worked from home on her own laptop for a period of two years prior to lodging of the complaint and has submitted resignation to the Company in May, 2020, due to personal reasons. But, she has retained certain documents of the Company with her. Subsequently, the de facto complainant and LW.2, husband of the de facto complainant, came to know about the misuse of the Company amount and when they questioned accused No.1 about the same and with regard to the confidential documents of the Company, accused Nos.1 to 3 started blaming and abusing them alleging that they were harassing her. It is further alleged that accused No.1 resorted to defame the Company and also the employees of the Company by posting derogatory remarks and comments in the social media by misusing the confidential documents of the Company. It is further alleged that the messages were made viral in social media. It is further alleged that the petitioners have insulted the modesty of LW.1 and further, have defamed ELDAAS Company. It is further
2
alleged that accused No.1 has demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with false allegations. Thus, the present case is registered for the offences under Sections 354D, 504, 506, 385, 420 and 408 read with 34 I.P.C. against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the police have filed charge sheet mechanically by relying upon the statements given by the de facto complainant and her family members and that the Investigating Agency failed to record the statements of independent witnesses. She further submitted that there is no truth in the allegations levelled against the petitioners. She further submitted that petitioner No.1, who is a lady, cannot be charged for the offence under Section 354D I.P.C. and the same is improper in the eye of law. She further submitted that petitioner No.1 has filed a Suit on the file of learned XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, against one S. Suneel Kumar, who is the husband of the de facto complainant, claiming an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and to clear the outstanding dues to an extent of Rs.26,00,000/-. In the said Suit, petitioner No.1 specifically pleaded that the husband of the de facto complainant and
3
petitioner No.1 were the Directors of M/s. Silohu Technologies Private Limited at Bangalore and that the husband of the de facto complainant has generated fake invoices of around Rs.26,00,000/- and cheated petitioner No.1 and thus, he is liable to pay the said amount and that the said Suit is pending before the Court at Bangalore. She further submitted that petitioner No.1 lodged a complaint on 16.11.2020 on the file of Siricilla Police Station against the said Suneel Kumar and others for the offences under Sections 354D and 506 read with 34 I.P.C., which was registered vide Crime No.590 of 2020 of Sircilla Police Station, and that as a counter blast, the present complaint is filed by the de facto complainant on 16.12.2020, which is nearly one month after the above crime was registered. Thus, the allegations are invented for the purpose of filing the case and to harass the petitioners herein. She, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
6. Perused the record.
7. The allegations in the complaint point out that petitioner No.1 has retained the documents of the Company, misused the same and misappropriated an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is further pointed out that some false and derogatory messages
4
have been made viral in social media in collusion with other accused. The employees of ELDAAS Technologies Private Limited are examined as LWs.7 to 13, apart from the victim and her family members.
8. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 354D, 504, 506, 385, 420 and 408 read with 34 I.P.C. As far as the allegations under Section 354D is concerned, it is pertinent to refer to the said provision and the same is extracted hereunder:
"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 clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking:
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that -
(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or
5
(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine."
9. The very provision itself envisages that a man harassing the women by stalking is punishable. In the present case, petitioner No.1 being a lady cannot be charged with the said offence. However, the allegations point out prima facie case against the petitioners, while Section 354D I.P.C. cannot be charged against petitioner No.1. The truth or otherwise in the allegations to prove the offences alleged can be culled out only after a full-fledged trial. Therefore, it is not proper to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this stage. However, it is deemed appropriate to quash the proceedings against petitioner No.1 for the offence under Section 354D I.P.C.
6
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.26 of 2022 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla, are hereby quashed against petitioner No.1-accused No.1 only for the offence under Section 354D I.P.C. and the proceedings for the other offences shall continue. However, the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Court is dispensed with provided they are represented by a counsel before the trial Court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial Court whenever their presence is required during the course of trial.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 01.05.2026.
MD
7