1 2025:CGHC:10445-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 779 of 2025 Deepak Rathore S/o Dhansay Rathore Aged About 33 Years R/o Amlidih, Raipur Tehsil and District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mana Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.03.04 17:14:15 +0530 2 “A. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of applicant. B. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the FIR dated 27.02.2024 bearing 91 of 2024 under Sections 67 and 67-A of the Information Technology Act registered by Police Station Mana Camp Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) against the present applicant as well as charge-sheet dated 23.09.2024 No. 334 of 2024 under Sections 67 and 67-A of the Information Technology Act and order taking cognizance dated 15.10.2024 proceedings pertaining to Criminal Case No. 18127 of 2024 pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). C. That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of applicant as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Police Thana Mana, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) received the information from NCRB, New Delhi that on 15.06.2022, the petitioner uploaded some obscene pictures of the women’s and photos related to children’s from his mobile phone bearing Moblie No. 9340430427, thereafter, the NCRB reported the offence to the local Police Station i.e., Mana Camp Raipur and the offence has been 3 registered against the petitioner on 27.02.2024. During the investigation, the prosecution agency recorded the memorandum of the petitioner, but no seizure has been made from the petitioner. Thereafter, the prosecution agency submitted the final report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur and thereafter, the learned trial Court took cognizance and further the learned trial Court has proceeded against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no direct evidence available on record that the petitioner has committed any offence and the petitioner is a government servant and he has posted at Police Head Quarter Naya Raipur as Assistant Sub Inspector. He also submits that there is no prima facie evidence available on record to show that the petitioner has committed the act as alleged. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year 2022, the mobile phone of the petitioner was repaired many times and for that he did not have his phone for so many days. Further, there is no victim of the incident and no FIR has been lodge by any person. He would submit that it has to be established that the person has directly participating in pornographic acts or used the child for any pornographic purposes whereas looking to the allegation and contents of the charge- sheet, it cannot be prima facie established that the petitioner has in any manner, used any child for any pornographic purposes. The prosecution has failed to prove that the alleged picture/video has been created or recorded by the petitioner as the same was already present over the internet. He further submits the prosecution has failed to prove that the alleged photo has been created or recorded by the petitioner as the same was already present over the internet. Further, there is an inordinate delay 4 in lodging the FIR of more than one year which has not been explained by the prosecution. Hence, this petition. 6. On the other, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the investigation has been done strictly in accordance with law and after completion of investigation the final report/charge-sheet has been filed before the trial Court and the learned trial Court had already taken the cognizance and the trial is in progress. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. 9. In the present case, admittedly, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the evidences and upon finding prima facie evidence regarding commission of offences the trial has been initiated against the petitioner. 5 10. From perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet and order taking cognizance, it transpires that petitioner uploaded some obscene pictures of the women’s and photos related to children’s from his mobile phone bearing Mobile No. 9340430427, therefore, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, the present petition does not fall in any of such category, wherein, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 11. In view of the above, we do not find it a fit case to quash the FIR bearing Crime No. 91 of 2024 dated 27.02.2024, charge-sheet No. 334 of 2024 dated 23.09.2024 filed by the Police Station Mana Camp, Raipur (C.G.) and the order taking cognizance dated 15.10.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 67 and 67-A of the Information Technology Act and the consequential criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case No.18127 of 2024 pending before the trial Court, as such, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan