1 2025:CGHC:11947-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 775 of 2025 1 - Ramesh Singh S/o Sohan Singh Aged About 22 Years R/o Barwad Garden, P.O. - Sarol, District- Rajasmad (Rajasthan) Presently R/o Balouda, P.S. - Balouda, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh P.S. - Balouda, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For State : Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11-03-2025 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the State/respondent. 2. In the present petition following prayer has been made by the petitioner:- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR bearing crime Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 no.314/2022 dt. 3/8/2022 offence U/s ─ 67, 67(B) of I.T. Act (Amended) 2000, impugned Charge Sheet (Challan) No.459/2022 dt. 10.12.2022 which is pending for trial before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Janjgir, District ─ Janjgir- Champa bearing Sessions Trial No. 119/2024 along with the order taking cognizance of the offences in the ends of justice.” 3. The brief facts mentioned in the petition are that, under the CCPWC scheme, through a cyber tip line no.118268899 sent by the NCRB branch, New Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, in which monitoring is done regarding the crimes being committed on various social media related to women and children, information was received regarding uploading and making viral obscene videos related to minor children on social media from the suspected mobile number +91-8511574427, on dated 21/02/2022, from Budhwari Chowk, Dewanganpara, Balouda, District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.). The petitioner, who is allegedly holder of the said mobile was taken into custody and it is alleged that the petitioner had created an ID on his mobile and uploaded the video and that he had broken the mobile with which he had created the ID and made the video viral and had thrown it in the canal. The FIR was lodged against the petitioner on 03-08-2022 and the case has been registered against the petitioner under U/s 67, 67 (B) of the IT Act and Section 201 of IPC and he has been arrested on 04-08-2022 and further investigation was carried out in the case and charge sheet has been filed. The bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. 3 has been granted to the petitioner by the order dated 10.08.2022 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Distt.-Janjgir Champa. By filing the present petition the petitioner has challenged the FIR, charge sheet, order taking cognizance of the offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner works as a Welder in the construction company G.R. Infra Project Limited Camp, Balouda under "Bharatmala Pariyojna". As per letter dated 19-07-2022 of the S.P., Janjgir-Champa, the alleged mobile number belongs to one Babarao Munde. But, there is no document available in the case which shows that the petitioner has received the said phone from Babarao Munde. In such a situation, it is not possible for petitioner to create a profile ID from the said phone and use it. According to the case diary, it is also not clear on which social media platform the accused has made the alleged obscene video viral. There is no such fact in the case which shows the petitioner to be a habitual offender. The Bail Application under section 439 Cr.P.C. of the petitioner has been allowed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir- Champa on 10-08-2022. There is no material in the charge sheet to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and the petitioner has been made an accused in the present case only on the basis of suspicion. Therefore, the petition may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that alleged obscene video was uploaded on the social media and it was made viral. There is sufficient material in the charge sheet against the 4 petitioner and looking to the nature of offence alleged against the petitioner, he is not entitled for any relief. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 23 held as under :- “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; 5 ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;” 6 8. There is allegation against the petitioner that he involved in uploading and making viral the alleged obscene video on social media platform. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and further considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited above, we do not find any good ground to interfere in matter. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil