1 2025:CGHC:52513 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3225 of 2025 1 - Xyz Details Mentioned With A Separate Envelope ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kunkuri, Dist. Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Snehalata Lakda D/o Nelsan Lakda Aged About 24 Years R/o Faradbhar Nalisibhar Po Tumala Dist. Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pooja Loniya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 28/10/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS 2023”), against the order dated 18.02.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.), in Criminal Case No. 2565 of 2024, whereby the learned trial Court has charges against the respondent No.2/accused under Sections 509 and 509-B of the IPC and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and prayed for modification of the charge and to add other charges also. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.03 18:59:58 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the complainant in the present case. On her complaint, an FIR of Crime No. 79 pf 2024 was registered at police station Kunkuri for the offence under Section 509 of IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It is alleged in the FIR that, the obscene photo and video of the complainant is uploaded in social media, Facebook and Instagram by some unknown person through the fake ID and vulgar comment has been made with respect to their religion. The matter was investigated by the police and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the respondent No.2 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kunkuri, where she is facing trial. 3. On 18.02.2025, the learned trial Court has framed charge against the respondent No.2 for the offence under Sections 509 and 509-B of IPC and Section 67-A of the IT Act, 2000. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, by the act of the respondent No.2/accused the complainant went in mental trauma and social humiliation. The obscene contents in social media and Instagram would cover the definition of sexual harassment of the complainant and her defamation, therefore, some other charges of Sections 354-A, 354-D, 500 and 506 of IPC should also be framed against the accused, but the learned trial Court has not framed the said charges. She referred to the document (Annexure A/5), which is the copy of evidence of the victim/PW-2 of that case, which was recorded in another case of Special Criminal Case under SC/ST Act No. 3 of 2024, pending before the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jashpur against some other accused persons and submitted that the genesis of 3 the present offence have been disclosed in that evidence (Annexure A/5) and therefore, proper and appropriate charges should have been framed by the learned trial Court. She prayed for a direction to the learned trial Court for modification/ adding of the additional charge in the case against the respondent No.2. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. The petitioner is claiming for modification and adding of the additional charge against the respondent No.2/accused. The petitioner is the complainant in the present case and she seeks modification of the charges. Chapter XVIII of BNSS, 2023 deals with the framing of charge. Section 234 deals with the contents of the charge, 235 deals with particulars as to time, place and person, 236 deals with the manner of committing the offence and 237 deals with the words in charge taken in sense of law, under which the offence is punishable. Section 238 deals with the effects of errors in the charges. A power has been conferred upon the Courts under Section 239 of the BNSS, 2023 that they may alter or to add any charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced. It is necessary to notice here Section 239 of the BNSS, 2023, which reads as under:- “239. Court may alter charge.- (1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. (2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused. (3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the 4 case, the Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered or added charge had been the original charge. (4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial for such period as may be necessary. (5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.” 7. At the stage of framing of charge, the learned trial Court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of contents or a roving inquiry into the same and has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose for fining out, whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused to proceed with the trial. 8. In the matter of “State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak” 2019 (13) SCC 62, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out, if facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, discloses the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and at the stage of framing charge, the Court is not required to appreciate the evidence on record and consider the allegations on merits and to find out on the basis of the evidence recorded, the accused is likely to be convicted or not. In para 14 to 17, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- “14 It is of relevance to refer to certain judgements of this Court. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi) 7, the appellant and two other individuals were charged under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. It had been alleged that the appellant and the other accused persons had forcibly compelled the deceased to 5 sign a settlement giving up a part of his share in the profits from the sale of certain land. This led to a dispute and as a result of the mental harassment suffered by the deceased, he committed suicide. The Court affirmed the framing of charges by the trial court. The two-judge Bench of this Court laid down the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide. Justice D K Jain held thus: “19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088], where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an “instigation” may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or willful omission or conduct which may even be a willful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, 7 (2009) 16 SCC 605 words or willful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. After due consideration of the facts and circumstances, the Court noted that prima facie, the offence of abetment of suicide was made out: “22. In the present case, apart from the suicide note, extracted above, statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation, tend to show that on account of business transactions with the accused, including the appellant herein, the deceased was put under tremendous pressure to do something which he was perhaps not willing to do. Prima facie, it appears that the conduct of the appellant and his accomplices was such that the deceased was left with no other option except to end his life and therefore, clause Firstly of Section 107 IPC was attracted.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. It was also noted that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for “presuming” that the accused had committed the offence: “25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the 6 material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for “presuming” that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.” 17. A two-judge Bench of this Court, in Rajbir Singh v State of U P 8 noted that in 8 (2006) 4 SCC 51 accordance with Section 227, the High Court must ascertain whether there is “sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” or there is ground for “presuming” that the offence has been committed. Justice G P Mathur held thus: “9. In Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, the Court while examining the scope of Section 227 held as under: “14. … Section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of inquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that ‘the judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused’. The ‘ground’ in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate inquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record, if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime.” 10. The High Court did not at all apply the relevant test, namely, whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or whether there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. If the answer is in the affirmative an order of discharge cannot be passed and the accused has to face the trial. The High Court after merely observing that “as the firing was aimed at the other persons and accidentally the deceased Pooja Balmiki was passing through that way and she was hit” and further observing that “the applicant neither intended to kill the deceased nor was she aimed at because of the reason that she was a Scheduled Caste” set aside the order by which the charges had been framed against Respondent 2. There can 7 be no manner of doubt that the provisions of Section 301 IPC have been completely ignored and the relevant criteria for judging the validity of the order passed by the learned Special Judge directing framing of charges have not been applied. The impugned order is, therefore, clearly erroneous in law and is liable to be set aside.” (Emphasis supplied)” 9. When the learned trial Court has considered the evidence available on record and framed charge on the basis of material available in the charge sheet, it cannot be said that the charges framed against the accused, it is required reconsideration by this Court, particularly when the learned trial Court is having power of Section 239 of BNSS, 2023 with respect to alter or add the charges anytime before the judgment is pronounced. The petitioner is claiming alteration/adding of the charges on the basis of the evidence of the victim (PW-2) in Special Case (SC/ST Act) No. 3 of 2024, pending before learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Jashpur by saying that, her evidence gives the cause to lodge the present FIR and therefore, the charge framed in the present case, is liable to be modified, is totally misconceived. The charge in the present case has to be framed on the basis of material and evidence available in the charge sheet in the present case. The material which the petitioner is relying is totally foreign to the present case and cannot be considered for modification/alteration of the charges against the respondent No.2 in the present case. 10. Consequently, this Court does not find any scope for interference in the present criminal miscellaneous petition, the same is devoid of merit, liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved