1 2025:CGHC:39342-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2462 of 2025 Satyraj Sarwa S/o Lokpati Sahu, aged about 27 years R/o H/no. 108, Ward No. 21, Sastri Nagar Rajhara, Dist.- Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Rajhara, Dist.- Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate For Respondent /State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07.08.2025 1 Heard Mr. Sumit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent. 2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayers :- “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the Petition and quash the FIR No. 47/2022 registered at police station Rajhara, District Balod and charge sheet No. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 60A/2025 filed in the court of JMFC Dallirajaga District Balod and also quash the order dated 10.07.2025 where Cognizance has been taken by the learned Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge F.T.S.C. (POCSO) in Special Sessions Case no. 13/2024 Balod, Dist.- Balod, in the interest of justice.” 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the impugned FIR was registered under Sections 67(A) and 67(B) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the IT Act’) and the charge-sheet bearing No. 60/2022 was also submitted against the petitioner on 31.03.2022, a copy of same has been annuexed as part of Annexure-P/1 at page No.13, but during the course of further investigation, Section 15 of the POCSO Act has been added by way of supplementary charge- sheet bearing No. 60A/2025, which is also under challenge. He further submitted that perusal of the said supplementary charge goes to show that only on the basis of suspicion, the said charge- sheet has been filed and the same be quashed. He also submitted that considering the fact that the impugned FIR has been registered against the petitioner way back on 08.02.2022 for offence under Sections 67(A) and 67(B) of the IT Act and charge- sheet was submitted against the petitioner on 31.03.2022, but during further investigation, it transpires that the Investigating Officer had found that post of the victim, which was posted on the Instagram, appears to be of a minor child and thus, there is no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner during the further investigation that the post, which was stated to be of the victim, was infact of a minor child. 3 4 Considering the fact that supplementary charge-sheet has been submitted and Section 15 of the POCSO Act has been added and the FIR has been lodged against the petitioner under Sections 67(A) and 67(B) of the IT Act and final report has also been submitted, it would be too early to interfere in the present proceeding for quashing the same as the prosecution still has to lead evidence and opportunity should be given to it to prove case against the petitioner, hence, we do not find any good ground for interference. 5 Accordingly, the instant petition is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra