Cyber Stalking 354D Fastest Decided Case in India

India's fastest decided Cyber Stalking Case under IPC 354D for Sending Obscene messages on WhatsApp and Talking Obscene on Phone. 

The Story:

Mr. Atul Ganesh Patil use to work as a Security Guard in  company called "Motherson" which manufactures Bumpers of car and is located in Chakan MIDC near Pune in Maharashtra. The Victim girl had come for job interview and at the entry had written down her personal mobile Number in the entry Register. The young guard who is resident of Yavatmal District and worked in Chakan, copied down the number from register, saved it in his mobile and started sending obscene WhatsApp messages from his mobile phone and even called her to talk obscene things thereby committing crime of stalking on her. Technically i feel had committed two more crimes i.e Data Theft and Breach of Privacy. I have seen such crimes happening across India, where the cell number is obtained and girls are chased, i see after digital payments have increased and for digital wallet purpose cell phones are shared, privacy compromise via mobile number sharing has increased in India. 

In this case, Victim blocked this convicted guard on her phone and social media. The desperate guard then started chasing her by sending obscene messages from his friends and known person mobile phones.

Police traced all these phones.

These all people whose Cyber stalking case law cyber law cyber crime obscenity case law WhatsApp case law state v Patil phones were used to send messages were made witness and later the accused Guard also accepted his crime. Judge pronounced his Order in open court .

Case Details: 

"State Vs Atul Ganesh Patil"

The FIR No. 17/17 was registered in Chakan Police Station on 10/01/2017 

near Pune.

Case decided and conviction ordered in 48 Hours. 

The investigation was done in 24 Hours and  recording of 5 Witness also was completed today on 11/01/2017. 

Today itself, punishment for 2 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs.500/- fine was pronounced in Khed (Rajguru Nagar) JMFC Court near Pune in the state of Maharashtra in India which Presided by Judge Mr. Y J Tamboli. 

What is Section 354 D of The Indian Penal Code

(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

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.

Classification under schedule 1 of CrPC

1. Upto 3 years + Fine for first conviction and is Bailable

2. Upto 5 years + Fine for second or subsequent conviction and is Non-Bailable

Composition under Section 320 of CrPC

Offence in Non Compoundable

Case Laws other than above for 354 D

1. Dara Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 17 June, 2016

Bench: Amar Singh Chauhan, Allahabad HC
2. Aarti Katiyar   Vs.  State of Raj.  S. B. Cr.  MISC. PETITION  NO. 3463/2013, Rajasthan HC

What do we mean by a “right of privacy”?

Justice Cooley in 1888 defined it simply as a right to be left alone. Alternatively, it may be defined as a right to be anonymous. The two definitions are quite different but both are important, and the right to be anonymous is a form of privacy that has particularly significant implications in cyberspace. In legal terms, our right of privacy amounts to a right to be free from government intrusion into certain areas of our lives and a right to be free from intrusion by other individuals into our “private” lives. In India, the former is protected largely through Constitutional interpretation and a number of statutes; the latter is protected largely through the law under tort principles.

Advocate Prashant Mali

International Cyber Crime Lawyer

#cybercrime #cybersecurity #cyberstalking #cyberlaw #law # caselaw