DHIRENDRA S/O. DATTATRAY PURIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:39983-DB
                                                                     47-APPLN-639-2020.odt



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          47 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 639 OF 2020

                                  Dhirendra S/o. Dattatray Puri
                                             VERSUS
                                The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

          Mr. Abhishek Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicant (VC)
          Mrs. P. J. Bharad, APP for Respondents

                                                          CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J
                                                          DATE  : AUGUST 31, 2026

          P. C. :

          1.            This Application filed under Section 482 of the Code of

          Criminal Procedure seeks quashment of the FIR bearing Crime No. 73/2020

          registered with City Chowk Police Station, District Aurangabad for the

          offences punishable under Sections 354-D, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

          Sections 67 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 and order of

          cognizance dated 17/02/2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate

          First Class, Aurangabad in RCC no. 914/2020 and subsequent charge-sheet.


          2.            It is a case of prosecution that the informant lodged First

          Information Report Crime No. 0073/2020 on 11.02.2020 against the

          present applicant and co-accused, Yogesh Gulabrao Ban who is a relative of

          the present applicant. The allegation in First Information Report is that co-

          accused sent photograph, threatening messages and audio recording of

          conversation between the informant and the Applicant to the informant’s


                                            Page 1 of 4
                                                           47-APPLN-639-2020.odt



relative i.e. Puja Manoj Puri, on her WhatsApp, along with obscene

messages about the informant. Based on these allegations, the present FIR

was registered against the present Applicant and co-accused Yogesh

Gulabrao Ban.


3.          Learned Counsel for the Applicant drew attention of the Court

to the first information report, which according to him, indicates that there

is no collusion alleged against present Applicant and co-accused in

committing crime in question. According to him, FIR only attributes against

co-accused of publishing photographs and the conversation between the

present Applicant and Informant on WhatsApp group. It contended that the

applicant cannot be held responsible for the alleged crime merely based on

assumptions or his family relation with the co-accused. The entire record

shows that only the co-accused sent the messages, and there is no evidence

that the applicant planned, helped, or took part in sharing them and

Therefore, continuing the criminal proceedings against the applicant would

be an abuse of the process of law. He is submitted that in absence of any

allegation against the Applicant and also in view of the fact that when there

is no evidence collected during the course of investigation indicating

involvement of the Applicant in this crime, the proceedings qua this

Applicant deserves to be quashed. He relied upon the Judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court Bhajan Lal vs State of Haryana (1992) SCC (Cri)



                                  Page 2 of 4
                                                           47-APPLN-639-2020.odt



426.


4.           Learned APP and learned Counsel for the Informant opposed

the Application. It is contended that considering the allegations in the FIR,

the collusion between the Applicant and co-accused can be assumed. They

also referred to the statements recorded during the course of investigation

in order to support their submissions,      particularly that of witness Puja

Manoj Puri, who stated that co-accused Yogesh Ban sent defamatory audio

clips of present applicant and informant, photographs, and threatening

messages through WhatsApp against the informant. They further submitted

that, since the subject audio clip was confidential exchange between the

present applicant and the informant, the same could not have been

circulated by the co-accused without the active connivance and facilitation

of the applicant.


5.           Perusal of the FIR, so also the statements of the witnesses, does

not indicate any attribution of collusion between the present Applicant and

the co-accused. The evidence does not show any offence having been

committed by the present Applicant. The offence under Section 67 of the

Information Technology Act involves transmitting or publishing obscene

electronic material, whereas the record shows that the messages were sent

solely from the mobile device of the co-accused, with no evidence linking

the Applicant to the transmission.Common intention cannot be inferred


                                  Page 3 of 4
                                                             47-APPLN-639-2020.odt



solely from the fact that the applicant is related to the co-accused or that his

voice features in the recorded conversation. As the overt acts are solely

attributed to the co-accused, continuing the criminal proceedings against the

Applicant would be an abuse of the process of law, squarely covered by the

principles in case of Bhajan Lal (supra), the Applicant cannot be forced to

undergo the criminal proceedings.


6.           In view of above, Application stands allowed in terms of prayer

clauses ‘C’ and ‘C-1’.


                                                      (R. M. JOSHI, J.)
Malani




                                   Page 4 of 4