Chandra High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:17068-DB NAFR ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1297 of 2025 Prateek Agrawal S/o Ghanshyam Agrawal Aged About 32 Years Businessman, R/o. Dabhara Road, Kharsia, District- Raigarh (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Sho Police Station Kartala, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Unnati Agrawal D/o Anil Agrawal Aged About 21 Years Student, R/o Rampur, P.S. Kartala, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : For Respondent No.1/State : Ku. Ishita, Advocate Mr. Swajeet Uboweja, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble
Legal Reasoning
Ramesh Sinha, Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Chief Justice , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 15 .04.202 5 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Ku. Ishita, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Swajeet Uboweja, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent No.1. 3. The present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- 2 “1. Direct the respondent authority to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of petitioner. 2. Quash the FIR dated 26/04/2024 filed against the petitioner vide Crime No. 47/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 509(A), 509(B), 354, 354D, 201 r/w sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections and 67 and 67A of Information Technology Act, 2000 registered at Police Station-Kartala, Dist. Korba, (C.G.), as well as charge-sheet no. 33/2024 filed on 06.07.2024, and supplementary (additional) chargesheet no. 33A/2024 dated 28.12.2024 and all consequent criminal proceedings in criminal case no. 56/2024 registered against petitioner and pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kartala, District Korba (C.G.) in the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of court. 3. Such other order(s) in favour of petitioner as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with costs.” 4. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, who is a cousin of the co-accused Soniya Agrawal, has lodged written report on 26.04.2024 at 19:10, against the present petitioner and his wife Soniya Agrawal, regarding an alleged offence committed from 30/03/2024 to 25/04/2024. The reason for delay has been cited as consultation amongst the family. The complaint alleges that the 3 present petitioner had sought OTP from the complainant for recharge of unlimited data voucher of mobile phone for her iPhone, after that, after some time he has sent a normal selfie of the complainant to her that was not uploaded on any social media. Post this, he sent one obscene photograph of complainant, and by threatening to make it viral, he allegedly pressurized and blackmailed the complainant to send more such photos. It is further alleged that the petitioner demanded obscene photographs and video from the complainant. It is alleged that he took her to a hotel (Jashn Resort) from the examination hall of her college and started crying about a loan on him and complained about his wife and tried to get intimate with the complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioner continued demanding nude selfies and videos from the complainant which she continued sending to him. One day, the incident was reported by the complainant to her mother, then her mother inquired the same with the co-accused. It is further alleged that the co-accused then checked the petitioner's phone in his absence and discovered the said photos. However, both the accused pressurized the complainant to accept this fact that there was a love affair between the complainant and the petitioner. It is further alleged that the present petitioner has made viral the obscene photographs and video of complainant. 5. On the basis of aforementioned complaint made by the complainant, FIR has been registered against the petitioner vide 4 Crime No. 47/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 509(A), 509(B), 354, 354D, 201 r/w sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections and 67 and 67A of Information Technology Act, 2000 at Police Station-Kartala, Dist. Korba, (C.G.). After completion of investigation, charge-sheet No. 33/2024 was filed on 06.07.2024 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kartala, District Korba (C.G.) and thereafter on 28.12.2024, supplementary (additional) chargesheet No. 33A/2024 has also been submitted, on the basis of which, Criminal Case No. 56/2024 has registered against petitioner. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceeding initiated on the basis of report of the complainant is nothing but the same is abuse of the process of law to harass the petitioner as there is no evidence on record to indicate that the petitioner was either stalking or blackmailing the complainant into sending him obscene pictures, but the evidence in fact points to the contrary, i.e. there was a consensual relationship between the complainant and the petitioner and when the same was discovered by the family of the petitioner, the present FIR was lodged against the petitioner and his wife with mala-fide intention, trying to falsely implicate the present petitioner in the aforementioned offences out of animosity and malice, on his refusal to divorce his wife. She further submits that the entire prosecution story started with the alleged cloning of the iPhone, 5 which surprisingly has not been seized. The hotel room bills of Jashn Resort filed with supplementary chargesheet show that the complainant went not once but twice i.e. on 14.06.2023 and 20.07.2023 with the petitioner to the resort room and for both times stayed over 8 hours and 6 hours with him, making it obvious that there was, in fact a love affair between the two. In an attempt to wreak vengeance on the present petitioner, the complainant has lodged an FIR with a false and improbable story, suppressing material facts, in order to rope in the petitioner and harass him by abusing the process of law. She also submitted that it is obvious that the complainant wanted to marry the petitioner but when that did not materialise, then out of personal grudge and animosity, a false report was made by the complainant consultation with her family, to initiate malicious prosecution, abusing the process of court in order to harass and wreak vengeance upon the petitioner. It is submitted that the present petitioner is being falsely implicated on the basis of contradictory and obviously improvised and polished statements of interested and inimical witnesses i.e. complainant and her family, which are not only together in consultation but in conspiracy. 7. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent opposes this petition and submit that since the charges have been framed against the petitioner, and the perusal of the materials on record discloses commission of cognizable offence, no interference is warranted at this stage. 6 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider the case on merit. 10. It has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, that the proceedings relating to cognizable ofences cannot be interfered except on certain grounds enumerated by the Apex Court in the said judgment. It is evident that, none of the grounds mentioned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment are attracted in the present case. In State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & others reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of cognizable ofence, there is no 7 other option but to register an FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR. Also what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 11. From perusal of the contents of the FIR, the charge-sheet, supplementary charge-sheet as well as statement of complainant recorded under Section 164 CrPC, it transpires that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he had sought OTP from the complainant for recharge of unlimited data voucher of mobile phone for her iPhone, after that, after some time he has sent a normal selfie of the complainant to her that was not uploaded on any social media. He sent one obscene photograph of complainant, and by threatening to make it viral, he allegedly pressurized and blackmailed the complainant to send more such photos. It is further alleged that the petitioner demanded obscene photographs and video from the complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioner continued demanding nude selfies and videos from the complainant which she continued sending to him. It is further alleged that the present petitioner has made viral the obscene photographs and video of complainant. 12. On the basis of aforesaid allegation levelled against the petitioner, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that prima facie, no case is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner will have every opportunity before the learned trial Court to rebut the allegations levelled against him. This Court cannot examine or appreciate the 8 evidences that may be led before the learned Trial Court and stalling the trial would be wholly unjustified. Further, in light of what has been said by the Supreme Court in Bhajanlal (supra) and Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra), there appears to be no good ground for quashing of the charge-sheet. 13. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra