1 2025:CGHC:43143-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2668 of 2025 1 - Sagun Lal Marbal S/o Late Sunder Lal Marbal Aged About 49 Years R/o Village- Deori, Post- Katnai, P.S. Akaltara, Distt.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2 - Gomti Marbal W/o Sanjay Bharadwaj Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Pasid, P.S. Sakti, Distt.- Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer (S.H.O.) P.S.- Sarkanda, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Shila Lahre D/o Kararam Lahre Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Adhbhar, Distt.- Sakti (C.G.) Presently R/o Gali No. 3, Bangalipara, In The Rented House Of Pappu Rathore, Sarkanda, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.08.29 10:33:28 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 26/08/2025 1. The instant CRMP has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:- “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the impugned FIR with consequent impugned charge sheet bearing crime no. 16/2025 for the offences punishable U/s 354(c), 509(b) of I.P.C & 67(A), 67(B) of 1.T. Act at P.S.- Sarkanda, Dist: Bilaspur (CG), where the charge sheet has been filled on 19.04.2025 along with impugned order of Cognizance taken by the J.M.F.C Bilaspur (C.G) dated 12.05.2025 against the Petitioners which is pending as Criminal Case no. 19975/2025 titled as State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Sagun Lal Marbel & Anr (P/1), in the interest of justice accordingly.” 2. Brief Facts of the case is that the complainant submitted a written complaint on 05.01.2025 stating that in between 3 December 2023 and June 2024, she repeatedly received obscene messages, videos, and photographs on her mobile phones through text and WhatsApp from certain person. She further alleged that her mobile number was hacked and her caller identification was deliberately altered to display derogatory names on the devices of her friends and acquaintances, due to which she suffered defamation, humiliation in her college, and disruption of her proposed marriage scheduled on May 2024. The complainant asserted that these acts caused her severe mental agony and damage to her social reputation. On the basis of her complaint, offence under Sections 354(C), 509(B) IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. 3. Upon investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 19.04.2025 against the present petitioners for offences under Sections 354(C), 509(B) IPC and Sections 67(A), 67(B) of the IT Act. Subsequently, cognizance was taken by the JMFC, Bilaspur, on 12.05.2025 in Criminal Case No. 19975/2025. On the same date, the Learned JMFC granted bail to the petitioners in the said case. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit the petitioners have not committed any offence and they themselves are the victims of malicious acts of one Jashpal Singh Dahariya, who, in collusion with the complainant herein, created fake social media accounts in the name of Petitioner No. 2 and circulated defamatory and obscene content, which has damaged the petitioners’ reputation and even delayed the marriage of Petitioner No. 2. The complainant has admitted in her reply under Section 91 Cr.P.C. that the accounts were created using her own mobile number, which shows clear fabrication of a false case to harass the petitioners and exert pressure on them to withdraw allegations against the accused. The mobile numbers cited by the prosecution were never in possession of the petitioners, one being deposited with the Cyber Cell and another already broken. The FIR and consequent proceedings are thus manifestly false and malicious, and even if the allegations are taken at face value, no ingredients of the alleged offences are made out against the petitioners, as the charge sheet discloses no unlawful intention, knowledge, or gain attributable to them. Hence, the impugned FIR, charge sheet and subsequent proceedings 5 deserve to be quashed. 5. Per Contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. 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 FIR./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 FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merits. 6 8. After having gone through the allegations made in the impugned FIR, it is evident that the complainant has alleged that she was repeatedly subjected to receipt of obscene messages, videos, and photographs on her mobile phone through text and WhatsApp from certain persons. It has further been alleged that her mobile number was hacked and her caller identification was deliberately altered so as to display derogatory names on the devices of her friends and acquaintances. As a consequence, the complainant suffered humiliation and defamation in her college, and even her proposed marriage was called off. 9. From the material contained in the FIR, it appears that the alleged acts were committed through the use of particular mobile numbers, and therefore, the possibility of involvement of the petitioners cannot be ruled out at this stage. It cannot, thus, be said that no prima facie offence is disclosed against the petitioners from the material collected during investigation. Since charge-sheet has already been filed against the petitioners, we find no good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the Cr.M.P. stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib/Gowri