DAYANIDHI DALIMA Vs. XXXXXXXXX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Laxmisagar P.S. Case No. 298 of 2023 corresponding to 1.C.C. No. 3418 of 2023 pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar for the alleged commission of offence under Ss. 268/294/349/350/ 354/354-A/354-C/383/420/468/495/503/509 read with Ss. 66(A)/66(E)/67&67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

(2.) The above case originally arose out of a complaint filed by one 'x' (name withheld) in the Court of J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar being I.C.C. Case No.3418 of 2023 alleging therein commission of the offence under Ss. 268/ 294/ 349/ 350 /354-A/ 354-C 383/ 420/ 468 /495 /503 /509/ read with Ss. 66(A)/66(E)/67&67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

(3.) It is stated that the petitioner and the complainant were known to each other as the petitioner is an ad film maker and the complainant is an actress. They developed friendship, which gradually transferred into an emotional relationship. The petitioner offered a contract to the complainant promising her to give multiple advertising campaigns and movies so as to ensure development of her career. Gradually the petitioner restrained the complainant from accepting projects of other Producers and Directors but the complainant met with several people in connection with her work whereupon the petitioner protested and raised hue and cry. The petitioner harassed the mother of the complainant sexually and mentally and also mentally harassed her brother in the year, 2022. He also used different social media platforms to post derogatory messages about the complainant with a view to malign her character. The petitioner also assaulted her in front of her classmates and sexually molested her. Taking advantage of their relationship, the petitioner took several intimate pictures of himself and the complainant in various compromising positions and blackmailed her by threatening to make such photographs public. It is also alleged that the complainant had transferred a sum of Rs.1,80,000.00 to the account of the petitioner, which he did not return despite several requests. Further, the petitioner paid the complainant amounts which were 70% to 80% less than her usual fees. Finally, the petitioner demanded that if the complainant did not recommend his name as Publicity Rights for her projects, he would pursue false legal proceedings against her.