ORAL JUDGMENT: Rule. Returnable forthwith. 2. Heard finally with consent of parties. 3. This is an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash F. I. R. registered by the police at Chandrapur. 4. Few facts may be narrated as follows: Applicant is a student of 1st year MBA at Sikkim Manipal University in Himachal Pradesh. The applicant and non applicant's daughter were studying at a school at Barmana together. They fell in love and used to meet each other frequently. They also continuously used to talk with each other on phone. The non applicant No.3's daughter Bhumika later sought admission in Dental College and was studying and staying at Baddi in Himachal Pradesh. She however used to visit the house of the applicant and even used to stay over night regularly. It is alleged that on 05.11.2005 the applicant and the daughter of the non applicant No.3 got married. The non applicant No.3 came to know of the marriage. He took away his daughter and she is now living with non applicant No.3. Since the non applicant No.3 was totally against the marriage, he never left any opportunity to harass the applicant. Upon the report submitted by the non applicant no.3 police have registered an offence under Section 292 of Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the Information and Technology Act. It is alleged by non applicant No.3 in his report that applicant used to send obscene SMS on his mobile phone. It is this F. I. R. which the applicant seeks to quash. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the non applicants. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that the SMS were sent to the wife and were not published as such and, therefore, there was no offence. It was also contended that it is an exchange of communication between the husband and wife and therefore of a confidential nature. It is not disputed that mobile phone on which messages were sent belongs to non applicant No.3 i. e. the father of the girl. It may be that the mobile phone may have been used by the daughter of the non applicant No.3 at times. Although we may accept that the SMS were sent to a wife they were sent on the mobile phone of the complainant who is a third person. It may be that the mobile phone may have been used by the daughter of the non applicant No.3 at times. Although we may accept that the SMS were sent to a wife they were sent on the mobile phone of the complainant who is a third person. Section 67 of the Information Technology Act reads as follows: Publishing of information which is obscene in electronic form- Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one lack rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment or either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also with fine which may extend to two lack rupees.. Section 67 prohibits publishing of information which is obscene in electronic form. The section even prohibits transmission of such information if it is likely to be read by others. Here the SMS were sent on mobile phone of complainant who was certain to read it although it may not have been sent to him. Let us see the contents of messages sent. They are as follows: i. Bhumika se meri bat karwa do I will suicide on front of whole world usne mujse shadi karne lie ...kyun hahu ab bt karunga. ii. Main koi pregnancy ki rumor nahiu faila raha bhune enjoy intercourse. She beded with me without condom. So mujse laga ki may be she is pregnant usne khud kaha tha. Time 7.32 p.m. iii. I cn proof to do whole world that she beded with me I have abnormal photograph in kasquli she know that in cd having sex in my bathroom her voi. Time 7.35 pm iv. Main chota hun she forced me sexual intercource hua hai do medical of girl abnormal photos in cd bhi hai bhumi khud rahi she likes d prtn between my legs in ne. Time 7.35 pm iv. Main chota hun she forced me sexual intercource hua hai do medical of girl abnormal photos in cd bhi hai bhumi khud rahi she likes d prtn between my legs in ne. Time 7.50 pm v. Bhumi ke pads par laga hua khoon hw that cms to me her stored juice in cloth her panties with me proof of each n everything her writn pages dat I perfrm sex bete. Time 7.54 pm vi. Bhumi ke buks ke bris uske kapde uske fingerprint uske gatepass mere bits she has come to my colony too photos in inbls of my mw do u want to prove. Time 7.56 pm vii. So do u want that world shld say her a prostute lein I think she is ditched n my parents to know a nice experience. Viii. Ab toh apke sachai batadi bhumi se aaj bat karwa doge to thik hai, may kal us bitch se bat karna chahunga ki nahimain kal par bharosa nahi karta. Time 8.05 pm ix. Aap apni wife ke samne mastrubte karte they dus apki wife kity parts mein plybyz ke sath apke bate main kuch meri wifw bataya nahi. Time 8.10 pm. x. Bhumi ko tho Samjhta tha uski baton mein aakar shadi ki chalo yet soch looga ki 8 sale se ek prostute se sath reh raha tha. xi. Aane wale dus mints agar apne meri bat nahi karwai toh kal offiuce mein mail ke attachment dekh lena all over acc ok dad. Time 8.27 pm. SMS particularly 5 and 9 are such that they certainly fall within the scope of Section 67. In fact the SMS No.9 was certainly sent to the non applicant No.3 and not to the wife. If the contents of SMS are read it is certain that they disclose an offence under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. 6. It was contended that the complainant i. e. non applicant no.3 had subsequently written a letter to the Supreintendent of Police withdrawing the complaint but he again wrote to the Superintendent of Police to take action. It was submitted that this was only with a view to take revenge and therefore the F. I. R. may be quashed. This is not an after thought. Complaint was already lodged and the contents of the SMS are certainly vulgar. 7. It was submitted that this was only with a view to take revenge and therefore the F. I. R. may be quashed. This is not an after thought. Complaint was already lodged and the contents of the SMS are certainly vulgar. 7. Shri Trivedi contended that this complaint has been filed against the accused as daughter of the complainant has married against his will and that being the reason this F. I. R. should be struck down. He relied on a decision of Allahabad High Court in Mohd. Habibur Rahman Faizi and other Vs. State and others 1996 Criminal Law Journal 74. It is observed as follows: The complainant made a false and frivolous complaint to the magistrate knowing well that what he was doing, was factually false and untenable in law. But out of ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the Manager, Principal, teacher and member of the management committee of the educational institution he lodged this complaint. In such circumstances, the complaint is liable to be quashed.. 8. In the present case the complaint is not factually false for electronic record, of such SMS is available and accused does not in fact dispute having sent such SMS. Shri Trivedi thus contended that there is a dispute of civil nature only between the parties and therefore it can be assumed that criminal proceedings are filed with a view to take revenge. He relied on a decision of Supreme Court M/s Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2780. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.. The High Court was, therefore, justified in rejecting the contention of the respondents that the criminal proceedings should be quashed in view of the pendency of several civil proceedings.. 9. Sending of vulgar SMS has nothing to do with the civil dispute between the parties. This is an independent act and offence not connected with the civil dispute. He is not being prosecuted for an act which is both of civil and criminal nature. This is an act essentially of a criminal nature. In the case at hand the contents of F. I. R. certainly go to make out a case under Section 67 of Information Technology Act as well as Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code and the case does not fall in any of the category as given out in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supreme Court 604. Criminal Application is, therefore, liable to be rejected and it is so rejected.