1 2025:CGHC:13290-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1282 of 2022 1 - Raju Dewangan S/o Dev Singh Dewangan, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bartunga Ps Pithora, Taluka Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. Taluka Mahasamund, ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Of Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - XYZ, Nill ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Saloni Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hari Om Rai, Panel Lawyer for the State. Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate for Res. No. 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20. 03.2025 1. Heard, Ms. Saloni Verma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hari Om Rai, Panel Lawyer for the State/ Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. 2 2. The present Cr.MP has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Prosedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR of Crime No. 538 of 2015 registered at Police Station- Civil Line, Bilapur for the offence under Section 354(D), 509 of IPC and Section 67(A) and 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (in short “IT Act”) and consequent charge-sheet. The petitioner prayed the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to allow the application and grant of interim relief to the present petitioner and pass such other order or orders which deems fit in the interest of justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the offence of Crime No. 538/2015 registered at Police Station- Civil Line, Bilaspur, for the offence under Section 354(D), 509 of IPC and Section 67(A) and 67 of IT Act. The said FIR has been registered on the complaint made by the respondent No. 2 who is the complainant in the case. The allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that the complainant/ respondent No. 2 repeatedly received the obscene video in her what’s app of her mobile phone from the mobile No. 9977787068 and when she collected the information, she came to know that it is the mobile phone of the present petitioner who is the student of Dr. C.V. Raman University, Kota. Despite her protest, he did not stop his activities, therefore, the complainant lodged a written complaint on 09/09/2015 upon which the FIR has been registered against the petitioner. After due process of investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed against him before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur for the said offence where the Criminal Case No. 4516/2015 is registered and pending for its consideration. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner who is an advocate has been falsely implicated in the present case though there is no evidence against him. There is no sufficient evidence in the chare-sheet that the said mobile phone belongs to the present petitioner and any obscene 3 video has been transmitted to the mobile phone of the respondent No. 2/ complainant. The petitioner as well as Respondent No. 2 were known to each other and they had the normal talk but there is no any obscene video sent by him in her mobile phone. The allegation against the petitioner and material produced along with the charge-sheet is not sufficient to proceed with the trial of the case. There is no certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act to prove the electronic evidence. The petitioner is facing criminal lis since 2015 without any sufficient evidence, therefore, the present petition may be allowed and the impugned FIR as well as charge-sheet may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/ State would submit that on the complaint made by the respondent No. 2, the Police has registered the offence and after due process of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the learned trial Court and the proceeding of the criminal case is pending for its consideration. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also submitted that the respondent No. 2 is also an advocate and she filed a written complaint to the Police and made allegation against the petitioner on which the FIR has been registered for the offence in question. As per the 164 of Cr.P.C. Statement of the complainant/ respondent No. 2, there was several messages sent by the petitioner through what’s-app in the mobile phone of the complainant including obscene photographs. When the respondent No. 2 objected, the petitioner did not stop his activities and refused to realize his mistake. The said obscene messages were also the part of the charge-sheet. The allegation against the petitioner made by the respondent No. 2 having various facets including factual aspect of the case which requires evidence which is to be recorded during the course of trial. Thus, at this stage, no interference is warranted in view of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021 (M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 4 Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others) and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 8. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 9. From perusal of the FIR as well as the document annexed with the petition, it prima facie reflects that the respondent No. 2 has made complaint that she received obscene messages from the mobile No. 9977787068 and when she tried to convince the petitioner not to sent the obscene messages, he did not stop his act and then she lodged the written complaint to the Police against the petitioner. The print out of the obscene messages have also been connected during the investigation which has been made as a part of the chare-sheet, further the display panchanama of the mobile phone was also prepared. From perusal of the 164 Cr.PC statement of Respondent No. 2, there is sufficient allegation and material against the petitioner to proceed with the trial and in the light of judgment passed by the Apex Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we do not find any good ground 5 for interference as it cannot be said that the complaint made by the respondent No. 2 is palpably false or does not prima facie disclose any offence. The nature of allegation requires evidence which is to be recorded during the trial of the case and at this stage, the FIR as well as charge-sheet cannot be quashed. 10. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the present Cr.MP is dismissed. 11. Since, the criminal case is pending since 2015, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.03.26 17:05:09 +0530