1 2025:CGHC:55014-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3251 of 2025 Amritansh Shukla (In Person) S/o Shri Chandrahas Shukla Aged About 35 Years R/o Rajendra Nagar Chowk District Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Koni Police Station District Bilaspur C.G. 2 - Smt. Smriti Shrivas W/o Shri Trilok Shrivas Aged About 56 Years R/o Badi Koni, Koni District Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Amritansh Shukla, In Person For Respondent-State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.11. 2025 1. Heard Mr. Amritansh Shukla, petitioner in person and Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.11.13 10:47:27 +0530 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “1. That the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the Order dated 10/01/2025 passed in Criminal Revision No. 232/2024 by the Special Judge, Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 Bilaspur C.G. in the interest of Justice. 2. That the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the FIR No. 118/2018- registered at Police Station Koni District Bilaspur for the offences punishable under section 509B of the Indian Penal Code/Criminal Law (Chhattisgarh Amendment) Act, S. 509B, No. 25, Acts of Chhattisgarh, 2013. 3. That the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the Final Report (Annexure P/3) filed by the Police Station Koni District Bilaspur for the offences punishable under section 509B of the Indian. Penal Code/ Criminal Law (Chhattisgarh Amendment) Act, S. 509B, No. 25, Acts of Chhattisgarh, 2013. 4. That the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the Order taking Cognizance 08/12/2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilaspur CG in Criminal Case No.1420/2021 and quash the consequential criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.1420/2021 pending before 3 Judicial Magistrate First Class Bilaspur CG (Annexure P/4) against the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the petitioner is an Advocate by profession, presently practicing before the High Court of Chhattisgarh and other subordinate courts. The petitioner is also a social activist and actively engaged in political activities. The complainant/respondent No. 2 is likewise active in politics, being a member of the Janpad Panchayat and a former Sarpanch, while her husband is a former representative of a Member of Parliament. On 29.03.2018, the petitioner, in his capacity as a social activist, shared on his Facebook account a post relating to the arrest of the complainant’s husband, along with photographs of the arrest as covered by the media. The said arrest was a matter of public record and was widely reported in newspapers and news channels. 4. Aggrieved by the said post, the complainant/respondent No. 2, with mala fide intention and to take revenge against the petitioner, lodged a false and frivolous FIR bearing No. 118/2018 dated 26.04.2018 under Section 509B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 27 days from the date of the post. The delay itself clearly indicates that the FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 30.05.2019 and released on bail by the learned Trial Court on the same day, 4 considering the nature of the allegations and the available evidence. The investigating agency thereafter completed the investigation and filed a Final Report dated 19.01.2019 before the learned Trial Court. The said report reveals that there is no material to establish the commission of an offence under Section 509B IPC. Moreover, no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was filed to substantiate that the impugned post originated from the petitioner’s mobile device. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, took cognizance of the matter on 08.12.2020 and released the petitioner on his own bond. The petitioner had earlier preferred a petition under Section 482 CrPC bearing Cr.M.P. No. 1491/2023, which was withdrawn with liberty to challenge the framing of charges at an appropriate stage. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an application for discharge under Section 239 CrPC, which came to be dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, vide order dated 21.12.2023. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC before the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bilaspur, which was also dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2025. The trial is presently at the stage of framing of charges. The continuance of the proceedings, despite the absence of any material to attract the offence alleged, would result in grave miscarriage of justice and cause undue hardship to 5 the petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate and has been falsely implicated in the present case. 7. The petitioner in person submits that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) is most appropriately invoked in the present case to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The instant case represents a clear instance where the criminal justice system has been misused by the complainant/respondent No. 2 to satisfy her personal vendetta and ill intentions against the petitioner, who is an Advocate by profession and a social activist. Therefore, the indulgence of this Court is earnestly prayed for to protect the Petitioner from unjust harassment. 8. The petitioner in person submits that the allegations levelled by the complainant/respondent No. 2 and the Final Report submitted by respondent No. 1 do not sustain in the eyes of law. The offence alleged under Section 509B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) (Chhattisgarh Amendment) does not stand attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Petitioner submits that Section 509B cannot be read in isolation as it does not define the expression “sexual harassment”. Hence, the definition contained in Section 354A IPC must be read in consonance with Section 509B IPC to determine its applicability. 6 9. The petitioner in person further submits that a conjoint reading of Sections 354A and 509B IPC reveals that to constitute an offence under Section 509B IPC, there must exist a communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, made with intent to harass or annoy a woman. In the instant case, the Petitioner had merely shared a factual post on Facebook relating to the arrest of the complainant’s husband, which was already in the public domain and had been published and broadcasted by multiple media platforms. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Sections 354A and 509B IPC are wholly absent, and the Petitioner’s act cannot, by any stretch of interpretation, be termed as “sexual harassment by electronic mode”. He submits that the complainant/respondent No. 2, harbouring a grudge against the petitioner for having shared the said Facebook post in the capacity of a social activist, has maliciously lodged the impugned FIR with an ulterior motive to avenge the petitioner. The said FIR is nothing but a blatant misuse of the process of law and a means to settle personal scores. 10. The petitioner in person submits that there is a considerable and unexplained delay in the lodging of the FIR, which itself demonstrates mala fide intent on the part of the complainant/respondent No. 2. The alleged Facebook post was shared on 29.03.2018, whereas the FIR was registered on 26.04.2018, after an inordinate delay of 27 days. The unexplained delay indicates that the FIR was a calculated afterthought, filed 7 only with an intention to harass the Petitioner. He further submits that respondent No. 1 has mechanically submitted the Final Report under Section 173 CrPC, charging the Petitioner under Section 509B IPC without any material evidence to support the same. The Final Report does not disclose any act on the part of the petitioner which could be termed as obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, as contemplated under Section 509B IPC. The post in question being a factual report already available in the public domain, cannot be construed as harassment of any kind. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner are liable to be quashed. 11. The petitioner in person further submits that respondent No. 1 has failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), which provides for certification of electronic evidence. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the alleged Facebook post; however, no such certificate has been annexed with the Final Report to prove that the said post originated from the petitioner’s device. In the absence of such certification, the alleged electronic record is inadmissible in evidence, and therefore, the prosecution cannot proceed further on such defective material. He submits that respondent No. 1 has failed in its statutory duty to conduct a free, fair, and impartial investigation. Instead, the Final Report appears to have been submitted in a mechanical manner, without 8 examining the legal ingredients necessary to constitute the alleged offence. The investigating agency has overlooked the basic requirements of law and has proceeded merely to formalize the process rather than substantively investigate the veracity of the allegations. 12. The petitioner in person contends that he is a practicing Advocate before this Court as well as the subordinate Courts of the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner, being an officer of the Court, represents citizens in their pursuit of justice, and his false implication in a baseless and frivolous case undermines the dignity of the legal profession. Continuation of criminal proceedings against an innocent Advocate would send a wrong message to the society and erode public confidence in the justice delivery system. It has been further submits that the matter is presently pending before the learned Trial Court at the stage of framing of charges. The petitioner has already exhausted all available remedies and the continuation of the criminal proceedings, despite absence of essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offence, would amount to sheer abuse of the process of law. Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the impugned proceedings in the interest of justice. 13. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that 9 the order framing charge has already been passed on 10.01.2025 by the learned Revisional Court. However, the formal framing of charge has not taken place before the Trial Court till date for the reason that the petitioner has not appeared before the said Court despite repeated opportunities. It is further submitted that the investigating agency, after a fair and detailed investigation, has found sufficient material to prima facie establish the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence, and therefore, the final report under Section 173(2) of CrPC has been rightly filed before the competent Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, after due consideration of the material placed before it, has rightly taken cognizance of the offence under Section 509B of the Criminal Law (Chhattisgarh Amendment) Act, 2013, and there is no procedural or legal infirmity in the said proceedings. 14. It is also submitted by the learned State counsel that the scope of interference by this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 of the CrPC / Section 528 of the BNSS is extremely limited and circumscribed. Such inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, with great caution, and only in cases where there is a clear demonstration of manifest abuse of the process of law or where the continuance of criminal proceedings would result in a gross miscarriage of justice. It is contended that none of these exceptional circumstances exist in the present case so as to warrant interference by this Court at this stage. 10 15. The learned State counsel further submits that the allegations and the contentions raised by the petitioner pertain essentially to disputed questions of fact, which require appreciation of evidence and examination of witnesses. These are matters that can be properly adjudicated only during the course of trial before the competent court and not in the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC / Section 528 of the BNSS. 16. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has neither challenged the order rejecting his discharge application nor has he participated bona fide in the trial proceedings. It is brought to the notice of this Court that though the discharge application has been rejected as far back as on 10.01.2025, the petitioner himself has consistently sought adjournments before the Trial Court on one pretext or the other and has deliberately avoided the framing of charge and the commencement of trial. 17. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the learned State counsel submits that the petition is misconceived and devoid of merit. Since no case of abuse of process or miscarriage of justice is made out and the issues raised are triable before the court of first instance, interference at this interlocutory stage is wholly unwarranted. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. 18. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents, and 11 material available on record. 19. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it goes to show that the investigating agency, after completion of investigation, has collected and placed on record various materials including statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., seizure memos, relevant documents, and other supporting evidence. A careful scrutiny of these materials prima facie reveals that there are sufficient grounds to presume the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged commission of offence. The allegations made in the FIR are not bald or vague; rather, they find substantial support from the evidence collected during investigation. 20. At this stage, the Court is not required to meticulously evaluate the probative value or sufficiency of the evidence, but only to see whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused to proceed further. In the considered view of this Court, the materials brought on record through the charge-sheet disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged, and as such, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner regarding lack of material evidence is not sustainable. Accordingly, there appears to be no infirmity or illegality in the filing of the charge-sheet or in the continuation of the proceedings before the trial Court. 21. It is the case of the petitioner that he has filed the present revision being Criminal Revision No. 232/2024 assailing the order dated 12 21.12.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 1420/2021 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Amritansh Shukla), whereby the application for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was rejected holding that there exists prima facie material in the charge-sheet and accompanying documents disclosing the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence, and that the question of his guilt or otherwise can be determined only after evidence is adduced during trial. 22. Having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the learned State counsel, and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that no ground for interference under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) is made out in the present case. The inherent powers of this Court are intended to be exercised in exceptional circumstances only to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. However, such powers cannot be invoked to stifle legitimate prosecution or to short-circuit the due process of trial, particularly when the allegations, as well as the evidentiary aspects, involve disputed questions of fact which can be properly adjudicated only upon evidence being led before the Trial Court. 23. A careful examination of the record reveals that the investigating agency, after a detailed investigation, has submitted the final 13 report under Section 173(2) CrPC, and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 509B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (as amended by the Chhattisgarh Amendment Act, 2013). The learned Revisional Court has also, vide order dated 10.01.2025, upheld the said proceedings and rejected the petitioner’s discharge application. The petitioner, however, has not chosen to assail that order before the appropriate forum. Instead, it is borne out from the record that after passing of the said order, the petitioner has repeatedly sought adjournments before the learned Trial Court and has deliberately avoided appearance, thereby obstructing the formal framing of charge and the commencement of trial. 24. It is noteworthy that the petitioner, being a member of the noble profession of law and an officer of the Court, is expected to maintain exemplary conduct and to assist the process of justice rather than impede it. The repeated filing of adjournment applications and avoidance of trial proceedings, despite ample opportunities granted by the learned Trial Court, does not demonstrate bona fide intent. The invocation of this Court’s inherent jurisdiction, in such circumstances, appears to be aimed more at delaying the trial than at seeking genuine redress. 25. The contentions raised by the petitioner, including those relating to the alleged non-compliance with Section 63 of the Bharatiya 14 Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and the absence of essential ingredients of the offence, are matters that involve appreciation of evidence and cannot be examined at this interlocutory stage. Such issues can appropriately be raised and adjudicated during trial in accordance with law. This Court, therefore, finds no apparent illegality, procedural irregularity, or miscarriage of justice in the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court that would justify exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. 26. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled position of law that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases of manifest injustice or abuse of process, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. The petitioner has failed to make out a case warranting interference at this stage. 27. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 28. However, while dismissing the present petition, it is observed that since the matter is pending before the learned Trial Court for framing of charge since long, the petitioner shall appear before the said Court on the next date of hearing without seeking any further adjournment. 29. The learned Trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law and to make all the endeavours to conclude the trial expeditiously. 15 30. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu