$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010375032026 + CRL.M.C. 5939/2026 & CRL.M.A. 24774/2026, CRL.M.A. 24775/2026, CRL.M.A. 24776/2026 PRADIP KUMAR PANDA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sharthak Chaudhary and Mr. Ujjwal Bhardwaj, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP with Mr. Siddharth Shankar Jha and Ms. Kalpana Jha, Advs. SI Chanchal, PS CR Park and SI Vishal Tiwari. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 14.08.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of FIR No.270/2021 registered at Police Station Chitranjan Park under Sections 354A, 354D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘IPC’) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 3. Briefly stated, the concerned FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, who alleged that after she accepted a friend request sent by the petitioner on Facebook, he sent her a sexually explicit image on 22.06.2021 and thereafter made sexual advances and extended threats to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:22:17 rape and kill her. Upon investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 354A, 354D, 506 and 509 IPC and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘IT Act’). The proceedings are presently pending as CC No.2832/2022 before the learned JMFC (Mahila Court)-01, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were connected on Facebook and had exchanged messages voluntarily. It is contended that the allegations are vague, inherently improbable and unsupported by any independent material. The FIR is stated by the learned counsel to have been lodged with mala fide intent and for ulterior purposes. 5. It is further submitted that Section 509 IPC was added mechanically at the stage of filing the charge-sheet, without any material that would disclose the requisite intention of the petitioner to insult the modesty of respondent No.2. The ingredients of Section 67A of the IT Act are also stated to be absent, as the mere exchange of messages would not attract the said provision. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the response sought from Facebook has not been placed on record and the complete translated version of the alleged conversations has not been filed. It is, therefore, contended that the charge-sheet is unsupported by cogent and admissible evidence and has been filed without proper application of mind. 7. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen with clean antecedents and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Reliance is placed upon State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 to contend that the present case falls This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:22:17 within the parameters governing quashing of criminal proceedings. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the state and have perused the material placed on record. 9. The jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is of an extraordinary nature and is required to be exercised sparingly. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra), the Supreme Court identified the circumstances in which criminal proceedings may be quashed, while cautioning that such power is to be exercised in exceptional cases. The Court, at this stage, is required to consider whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of an offence. It cannot examine their correctness or undertake an assessment of the evidence as would be done during trial. 10. In Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Supreme Court reiterated that the power to quash criminal proceedings is to be exercised with circumspection and that the High Court should not stifle a legitimate prosecution at its inception. 11. Similarly, in CBI v. Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399, it was held that proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction cannot be converted into a mini trial by weighing the material collected during investigation or examining the probable defence of the accused. 12. In the present case, the FIR contains specific allegations that the petitioner sent a sexually explicit image to respondent No.2 through Facebook, made sexual advances towards her and thereafter extended threats to rape and kill her. These allegations cannot, at this stage, be described as vague or omnibus. If taken at their face value, they disclose the commission of cognizable offences and warrant adjudication on the basis of evidence led before the learned Trial Court. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:22:17 13. The contention that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were connected on Facebook and had earlier exchanged messages voluntarily does not, by itself, negate the subsequent allegations. Acceptance of a friend request or an earlier voluntary conversation cannot be construed as consent to receive sexually explicit material or threats. The nature of the communication, its context and the defence of the petitioner raise disputed questions which cannot be determined in the present proceedings. 14. The absence of a response from Facebook or of a complete translation of the conversations does not, by itself, render the entire prosecution liable to be quashed. These contentions pertain to the proof and evidentiary value of the electronic material and may be raised before the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage. They do not efface the allegations contained in the FIR or the other material referred to in the charge-sheet. 15. The contention regarding the addition of Section 509 IPC and Section 67A of the IT Act also does not furnish a ground for quashing the entire proceedings. The charge-sheet records that the said provisions were added upon investigation. In view of the allegation that sexually explicit material was transmitted electronically, it cannot be held at this stage that invocation of the said provisions is ex facie untenable. Their precise applicability shall be considered by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the material produced before it. 16. The grounds urged by the petitioner would require this Court to examine the electronic conversations, evaluate the material collected during investigation and accept the defence of the petitioner. Such an exercise would amount to conducting a mini trial, which is impermissible while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The present case This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:22:17 does not fall within any of the categories warranting interference as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra). 17. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to quash FIR No.270/2021 or the proceedings emanating therefrom. 18. Accordingly, the present petition is devoid of any merit and is thereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 19. Nothing expressed herein shall be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case. 20. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court for necessary information and compliance. 21. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 14, 2026/JYH/PG This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 11:22:17