Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32296 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19620 of 2024 Applicant :- Devesh Chandra Jaiswal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Parbind Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant in Court, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of charge-sheet dated 29.06.2020, the cognizance order dated 08.11.2023, as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No. 646 of 2023, titled State v. Devesh Jaiswal, arising out of Case Crime No. 478 of 2019, under Section 298 I.P.C., and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, at P.S. Shahganj, District Jaunpur, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-5th, Jaunpur. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. There is no public witness to the incident. He next submits that the charge-sheet has been filed based on the statement of police witnesses. The learned counsel further submits that it is not the applicant's mobile, from which the screen shots of the incriminating materials have been taken by the police. The applicant is not the subscriber of the facebook account. 5. Learned A.G.A. states that it has specifically come in the police investigation in CD Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that the applicant is the subscriber of the facebook account and the owner of the mobile, from which the incriminating materials have been uploaded on the facebook. It is further contended that the allegations against the applicant satisfy the ingredients of Section 298 I.P.C., and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. 6. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., as well as perusal of the material available on record, it is prima facie evident that the applicant is subscriber of the facebook account and the owner of the mobile, from which the incriminating materials have been uploaded on the facebook. The said allegations would attract the provisions of Section 298 I.P.C., and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Consequently, no case is made out for quashing the impugned proceedings. 7. So far as the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are concerned, it can be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Similarly no such illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out in the impugned summoning order, so as to warrant any interference by this court in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 8. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Shafique Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad