HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 46890 of 2025 Court No. - 80 HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Crl. Case No.44583 of2025 (State Vs. Deepak Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No.166 of 2025 under Section 318(4) of B.N.S. and Section 66-D of I.T. Act and also to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 18.7.2025 as well as impugned cognizance order dated 6.10.2025, Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant has neither uploaded any such video nor has any video been recovered from his possession. Further, no material has been found to suggest that the applicant carried out any manipulation or editing of any video. It is further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated merely on the allegation that he had recorded a video of the concerned police station, allegedly showing mishandling of persons who had come there to lodge their F.I.R., which were not being registered. It is further submitted that, after investigation, the police have filed a charge-sheet against the applicant. The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 06.10.2025, has taken cognizance under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act. It is contended that no offence, as alleged, is made out against the applicant. The learned Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vinay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Deepak Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Magistrate has failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and has mechanically passed the impugned cognizance order. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality and infirmity and is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant. It is contended that an F.I.R. has been registered as Case Crime No. 0166 of 2025 under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, alleging that the applicant had uploaded a video on facebook. It is further submitted that, after due investigation, the police have filed a charge- sheet, and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance vide order dated 06.10.2025. It is thus contended that, on the basis of the F.I.R., charge- sheet, and the material available on record, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance and has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. Therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed. 5. From the facts of the present case, it transpires that an F.I.R. has been registered as Case Crime No. 0166 of 2025 under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, with an allegation that the applicant had uploaded a video on facebook on 09.05.2019. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet and the the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 06.10.2025, has taken cognizance under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act against the applicant. The learned Magistrate has given a detailed reasoning in passing of the impugned order. 6. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar NA528 No. 46890 of 2025 2 Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused. 8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. March 19, 2026 Md Faisal NA528 No. 46890 of 2025 3 (Chawan Prakash,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad