Uttarakhand High Court orders man accused of online sexual harassment to plant 50 trees as condition to quash case

The Uttarakhand High Court recently ordered a man accused of sexually harassing a woman over Facebook to plant 50 trees as condition to quash the case against him. .In an order passed on July 19, a Bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma directed the man to plant 50 trees under the supervision of the Horticulture Department within one month."Owing to the aforesaid, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2453 of 2022, State Vs. Neeraj Kirola, presently pending consideration before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, would hereby stand quashed. But, since the offence being not compoundable, the quashing of the aforesaid criminal proceedings would be subject to the conditions, as contained hereunder:- “1. That the applicant would be planting fifty trees in an area to be identified by the Horticulture Department of his District or Taluka to which he belongs, at his own cost," the order said.The Court further clarified that failure to comply with the condition would result in the automatic revival of the case, and the accused would be prosecuted accordingly."It is only upon the submission of the certificate of the planting of the fifty trees to be issued by the competent authority of the Horticulture Department, which has to be submitted before the competent court ceased with the criminal proceedings, that the proceedings would be dropped, in compliance of the today’s order passed in the present applications," the Court made it clear.The Court also said that the quashing of the case in itself should carry a lesson for the applicant that in future he would not engage in such types of offences and he should reckon how to acknowledge the sanctity of a friendly relationship..By way of background, the applicant-accused had sent a friend request to the complainant on Facebook which she accepted. However, after a few days, the applicant began sending the complainant indecent and objectionable videos and photographs.The complainant filed a first information report (FIR) against the accused which led to a case being registered for offences of outraging modesty of women (Section 354A) under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed based on these provisions, and the accused was issued summons..Aggrieved by the initiation of criminal proceedings, the accused approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings. Further, an application was submitted expressing the parties desire to compound the offences and thereby both parties filed an affidavit.During the hearing, the Court was informed by the complainant, that she was willing to drop the case since the applicant had apologized, and she had accepted the apology.However, the state counsel opposed the compounding application arguing that the offence under Section 354A of the IPC is not compoundable as per Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure..After hearing both the parties, the Court acknowledged that the offence under Section 354A of the IPC is a crime against the society and the offence is not compoundable. However, considering the agreement between the parties, it decided to use its inherent power to quash the proceedings.Advocate Dharmendra Barthwal appeared for accused. Advocate Mamta Joshi represented the State while Advocate Paritosh Dalakoti appeared for complainant..[Read Order]