1 2026:CGHC:17042-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1044 of 2026 Sandeep Kumar Banjare S/o Sewak Ram Banjare Aged About 50 Years R/o House No. 60 Bajarpara Ward No. 03 Tehsil, Palari District, Balod- abazar Chhattisgarh 494553 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Police Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 3 - Thana In Charge Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 4 - X Aged Y, R/o Z. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 15.04.2026 1 Heard Ms. Rajni Soren, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned Deputy Government Advocate, ap- pearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.04.16 10:40:16 +0530 2 2 By filing the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “(1) Quash FIR No. 82/2025 Dated 6.2.2025 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja u/s 66C of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. (Annexure P/1); (2) Quash Chargesheet No. 723/2025 dated 22.12.2025 u/s 238 BNS and 66 C of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 submitted before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G); (3) Quash order dated 23.11.2025 passed in "State of Chhattisgarh v. Sandeep Kumar Banjare Criminal Case No. 11451/2025 whereby the Chief Judicial magistrate, Ambikapur, District Sarguja has taken cognizance of the impugned chargesheet; (4) Pass any other order the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR dated 06.02.2025, registered under Section 66C of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, as the same are nothing but a result of personal discord between the petitioner and the complainant. It is contended that the FIR was lodged by the complainant against an unknown person in a fit of anger and emotional distress arising out 3 of a strained personal relationship, and not on account of any genuine criminal intent attributable to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the complainant herself has subsequently realized the mistake and has executed a duly notarized affidavit dated 28.02.2026, categorically stating that the FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding and disappointment, and that she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. Learned counsel would submit that continuation of the proceedings, despite such clear and unequivocal stand of the complainant, would serve no fruitful purpose and would only result in unnecessary harassment to both parties, particularly when the complainant herself apprehends adverse impact on her personal life, career and future prospects. 4 Learned counsel also submits that even from a bare perusal of the FIR and the material collected during investigation, the essential ingredients constituting the offence under Section 66C of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Section 238 of the B.N.S. are not made out against the petitioner. It is argued that the allegations are vague and do not disclose any dishonest or fraudulent intention as required under the said provisions, and therefore, the continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law. 5 Placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No.1217/2022, learned counsel submits that even in cases involving serious 4 offences, the High Court is empowered to quash proceedings where the chances of conviction are bleak and the continuation of trial would be a futile exercise, particularly when the parties have amicably resolved their dispute. It is thus submitted that in the present case, where the complainant is not supporting the prosecution and has expressed her unwillingness to proceed, the possibility of conviction is remote. 6 It is further urged that the petitioner is a government servant and the pendency of the present criminal case is causing irreparable harm to his reputation, career and future prospects. Since the trial has not yet commenced and charges are yet to be framed, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the proceedings are quashed at this stage. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that this Court be quashed the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings in the interest of justice. 7 On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of cognizable offences under Section 66C of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Section 238 of the B.N.S., and therefore the same cannot be quashed at the threshold. It is contended that the investigation has culminated in filing of the charge-sheet and the learned Magistrate has already taken cognizance, which indicates that prima facie material exists against the petitioner. It is further submitted that merely because the complainant has resiled from her earlier stand or does not wish to 5 pursue the matter, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed as the offences alleged involve misuse of digital identity and have wider ramifications. Learned State counsel would urge that the veracity of the allegations and the defence of the petitioner are matters to be examined during trial and not in proceedings under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. It is thus submitted that no case for interference is made out and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8 I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 9 From perusal of the charge-sheet, it transpires that the prosecution case is founded upon a duly registered complaint made by the complainant alleging misuse of her identity by creation of a fake Instagram account in her name, wherein her photograph and mobile number were allegedly used along with objectionable content. The investigating agency, upon receipt of the complaint, proceeded in accordance with law and obtained technical inputs from the Cyber Cell, Ambikapur, which led to tracing of the Instagram account to a specific mobile number. The subscriber details of the said mobile number were further ascertained, linking the same to the present petitioner. 10 The material collected during investigation further reveals that upon issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S., the petitioner appeared before the police authorities and, during interrogation, admitted his involvement in the creation of the said Instagram account. It is also borne out from the record that despite being 6 served with notice under Section 94 of the B.N.S.S. to produce the mobile phone and SIM allegedly used in the commission of the offence, the petitioner failed to produce the same, offering an explanation that the device had been lost during travel and that he had not reported the same to the authorities. In view of such non- production of material evidence, Section 238 of the B.N.S. was also invoked by the investigating agency. 11 It is further evident that after completion of investigation, a charge- sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the offences under Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and Section 238 of the B.N.S., and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same. The sequence of events and the material collected during investigation, including the technical evidence and the conduct of the petitioner, prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offences and provide sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. 12 At this stage, the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, particularly with regard to the alleged compromise between the parties and the subsequent affidavit filed by the complainant, cannot be made a sole basis for quashing the proceedings, especially when the allegations pertain to misuse of digital identity and involve elements which transcend a purely private dispute. The evidentiary value of such affidavit and the defence sought to be raised are matters to be considered during the course of trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated in this proceeding. 7 13 It is well settled that the inherent powers of this Court are to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and not in a routine manner so as to stifle a legitimate prosecution. In the present case, considering the nature of allegations, the material collected during investigation, and the fact that the petitioner himself is stated to have admitted his involvement during investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for quashing of the impugned FIR or the consequential proceedings. 14 Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all permissible defences before the trial Court at the appropriate stage, and the observations made herein shall not prejudice the merits of the case during trial. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu