1 2026:CGHC:11565-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 690 of 2026 1 - Baby Rathour W/o Shri Umesh Rathour Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Balbahara, Tahsil - Jaithari, Distirct - Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Aamanaka, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Leena Verma W/o Shri Chandrashekhar Verma Aged About 37 Years R/o Near Mahoba Bazar Shiv Mandir, Mauli Beauty Parlour, P.S. Aamanaka, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Amit Chaki and Ms.Tanuja Dhruw, Advocates. For State : Shri Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 11.03.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer/reliefs: i) Kindly allow the petition; and ii) Quash the FIR (ANNEXURE-P/3) bearing Crime No.86/2025 dated 13.03.2025 registered at P.S. Aamanaka, Raipur for the offence under section 79 BNS 2023 and Section 66D of the IT Act, 2000; and iii) Quash the entire Charge-sheet (ANNEXURE-P/2) bearing No. 289/2025 dated 30.11.2025 filed in connection with Crime No. INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.03.16 14:45:30 +0530 2 86/2025, Aamanaka, Raipur for the offence under section 79 BNS 2023 and Section 66D of the IT Act, 2000; and P.S. iv) Quash the Cognizance Order (ANNEXURE-P/1) dated 17.12.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 55776/2025 and all consequential/subsequent proceedings arising therefrom pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Case No. 55776/2025 against the Petitioner in connection with the said FIR and charge-sheet in the interest of justice; v) Pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2 The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has been filed seeking quashment of Charge-sheet bearing No.289/2025, dated 30.11.2025 and FIR No.86/2025, dated 13.03.2025, registered at Police Station Aamanaka, District-Raipur, for offences punishable under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3 Facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a lady working as ASHA worker. The allegation against the petitioner is that she created a fake Facebook profile in the name of Complainant/victim and uploaded obscene photos/videos in the said fake Facebook account of complainant and as such insulted her modesty. The complainant filed a complaint before the concerned Police Station followed by registration of FIR dated 13.03.2025 in Crime No.86 of 2025 and charge sheet was also filed on 30.11.2025 for the aforesaid offences. Hence this petition seeking quashment of FIR and all other consequential proceedings. 3 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner lost her mobile SIM Card (No. 8871251349) much prior to the alleged date of incident which was reported by her at Police Station, Jaithari, Madhya Pradesh on 06.06.2024. The alleged fake account activity commenced w.e.f. 06.08.2024 i.e. much after the Petitioner lost her mobile and SIM card. Thus, it is clear that the said fake account was created and operated by any third person and not by the petitioner, yet cognizance has been taken on 17.12.2025 without appreciating the said fact of missing mobile phone and SIM Card. Further, the FIR has been lodged as a counter-blast to settle old personal scores between the petitioner and husband of the complainant. Thus, no offence prima facie has been committed by the petitioner and therefore, FIR and consequential proceeding is prayed to be quashed. 5 We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6 It is not in dispute that from the mobile phone/SIM card registered in the name of petitioner, a fake Facebook account was created in the name of respondent/complainant and obscene photos/videos were uploaded. Though intimation/complaint of missing mobile phone and SIM Card is alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner before Police Station, Jaithari, District Anuppur on 06.06.2024, however from seal of concerned police station, the year of receiving date appears to be 2025 and not 2024 and as such the actual date of lodging missing report of mobile of the petitioner itself is disputed. Further, the petitioner has also not specifically mentioned any specific date since when her mobile phone went missing and is being used by some third person by creating fake Facebook ID. The rest of the facts are matters 4 to be adjudicated upon after recording evidence. From the materials available in the case itself prima facie it appears that some role seems to have been played by the petitioner. Thus, this court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that prima facie the ingredients that are required for registration of FIR is made out. All the other aspects which the petitioner intend to assail are the defences and which can only be looked into after the evidence on either side are adduced and which cannot be looked into at this stage. 7 So far as the law under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNS is concerned, it is by now a well settled proposition, that while considering the case for quashing of the Criminal proceedings the court should not “kill a stillborn child” and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there a compelling circumstances to do so. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegation have some substance. When a prosecution at the initial stage is to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is whether the uncontroverted allegation as made, prima facie establish the offence. At this stage neither can the Court embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence nor should the court judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. 8 For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for interfering with the registration of FIR and consequential proceeding against the petitioner. Petition therefore, being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder