[2025:RJ-JP:4668] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5653/2024 Sarita Nath D/o Mahendra Amarnath, R/o Gorakhnath Saw Mill, Mawadi Gate Ke Bahar, Beavar, District - Beawar (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor. 2. Abhaynath Devda S/o Santoshnath Devda, R/o Sundar Vilas, Gali No. 2, Opposite - Subhash Udyan, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atul Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor Mr. Mahendra Shandilya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 03/02/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, the petitioner has made a prayer that the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Beawar (for short "the trial Court") in Criminal Case No.297/2023 and also the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Beawar (Ajmer) (for short "the Revisional Court") in Criminal Revision Petition No.02/2024 (wherein the order dated 15.12.2023 was challenged) be quashed and set aside and the documents filed alongwith the application dated 05.09.2023 be ordered to be taken on record. 2. During the course of arguments, the petitioner gave up the challenge to the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the Revisional Court, fairly admitting the fact that the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned trial Court is an interlocutory order, [2025:RJ-JP:4668] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-5653/2024] therefore, the Revisional Court has rightly dismissed the criminal revision petition, as the same is not maintainable. 3. Now the matter is being considered for challenge to the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned trial Court. 4. Facts of the case are that during trial of the case for offences under 498-A and 406 IPC, as alleged against the accused/respondent, the complainant/petitioner filed an application on 05.09.2023 with a prayer to take on record the documents off the electronic media-facebook chat between the accused-respondent and some other girls, printouts of which were being submitted. It was stated in the petition that the accused- respondent submitted a reply to the application under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act filed by the complainant and disputed the genuineness of the documents being submitted on the ground that they do not fulfill the requirements as provided under law. 5. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 15.12.2023 dismissed the application filed by the complainant/petitioner under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents which are being submitted by the complainant/petitioner are substantial documents which requires proper appreciation with respect to the allegations levelled against the accused-petitioner. He also submits that the chat between the accused/respondent and the other girls clearly prove the allegations levelled against the accused/respondent. He further submits that the documents which are being submitted by the complainant are electronic documents of which printouts have been taken and there cannot be any doubt as to its genuineness. [2025:RJ-JP:4668] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-5653/2024] 7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondent opposed the prayer and submits that the complainant-petitioner has only submitted an application under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act but there is no affidavit/certificate produced by the complainant as required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submits that in the application filed on 05.09.2023, no details have been given as to who took out printouts of the alleged chat. However, lateron a certificate in the name of Ankit Garg was submitted which seems to be an after thought of the affidavit and since there is no mention in the application as regards Ankit Garg, it creates a doubt about the said documents. 8. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record. 9. In the application filed under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act by the complainant/petitioner on 05.09.2023, it has been averred that the accused-respondent was having illicit relations with other girls, as can be inferred from the facebook chat. The said chats have been deleted and the printouts of the same have been taken and are required for proper appreciation of the allegations levelled against the accused-respondent, therefore, the same may be taken on record. 10. The learned trial Court after having considered the documents in light of the arguments advanced, gave its finding that the complainant has not submitted her own affidavit as regards the genuineness of the documents and also does not disclose how she got these documents i.e. printouts of the chats. The learned Court below has also observed that the complainant/petitioner has submitted an affidavit in the name of [2025:RJ-JP:4668] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-5653/2024] one Ankit Garg but has not disclosed in the application how Ankit Garg is having lawful possession of the mobile phone i.e. electronic device from which printouts of the facebook chats have been taken. In such circumstances, the Court has disbelieved the credibility of those facebook chats and has also observed that the printouts so concerned also do not fulfill the requirements as provided under law. Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the admissibility of electronic records reads as under:- "65B. Admissibility of electronic records.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, sorted, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and compute in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. (2) The conditions referred in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:- (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities; (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was [2025:RJ-JP:4668] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-5653/2024] out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities. 11. Sub-section (2) of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act provides for a condition in respect of computer output. On perusal of the contents of the application and the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, it is borne out that there is no affidavit submitted by the complainant/petitioner as to who was having lawful possession of the mobile phone i.e. electronic device from which printouts of the facebook chats have been taken, meaning thereby, the person who was having lawful possession of the electronic device, has not submitted any affidavit/certificate as required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. On perusal of the averments made in the application in the light of the requirements as given under Sub-section (2) of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, this Court finds that the application filed by the complainant/petitioner under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is not proper and does not fulfill the conditions so required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence, no ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court. 11. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed and the interim order, if any, also stands vacated. 12. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /360