Shashwat Tewari v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 18.06.2019 in Case No. 115 of 2022, arising out of FIR No. 0143 of 2019, under Sections 500 IPC and Sections 66A, 66D and 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda and summoning order dated 14.08.2025 passed by CJM, Gonda. Briefly stated facts are that an FIR was lodged under Sections 500 IPC & Sections 66A, 66D and 67 of I.T. Act, against the applicant, while making allegation that the complainant, Karan Bhushan Singh received a video, a day before i.e. on 13.05.2019, by a reporter/Journalist on his WhatsApp No.9838989000 and the person had sent this video to him from his Mobile No.9415999959, after copying the said video alongwith the post below the said video, posted by a person from his Mobile No. 8090203000 on All R vp Group, wherein it was written that " the person in the said video is Karan Bhushan Singh son of MP from BJP Kaiserganj, Brij Bhushan Singh, who is openly buying votes and saying that he would send money to the house and immediate action from Election Commission 2 A482 No. 7279 of 2025 has been demanded." Submission put forth by learned counsel for applicant is that after the investigation, the chargesheet was filed under Section 500 of IPC and Sections 66A, 66D and 67 of IT Act, whereafter the learned Magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 14.08.2025 which is under challenge, wherein the cognizance was taken under Section 500 IPC and 66D and 67 of IT Act. She submits that further investigation proceeded and a 'Parcha' was prepared by the Investigating Officer concerned, which is appended as Annexure No. 6 at page 35 to the application, wherein it is mentioned that from Case Crime No. 143 of 2019, Section 66D and 67 of IT Act are dropped. She further argued that now the trial court cannot proceed in Case Crime No. 143 of 2019 as a police case, as only complaint case can lie for the offence under Section 500 IPC. Section 500 IPC reads as under: "500. Punishment for defamation:- Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." Referring the aforesaid, she submits that Section 199 of the Cr.P.C. clearly provides that so far as the prosecution for defamation is concerned, no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of Indian Penal Code, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Section 199 of Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereunder: "199. Prosecution for defamation. (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence : Provided that where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the 3 A482 No. 7279 of 2025 Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, when any offence falling under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed against a person who, at the time of such commission, is the President of India, the Vice-President of India, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union Territory, or a Minister of the Union or of a State, or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions a Court of Session may take cognizance of such offence, without the case being committed to it, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor. (3) Every complaint referred to in sub-section (2) shall set forth the facts which constitute the offence alleged, the nature of such offence and such other particulars as are reasonably sufficient to give notice to the accused of the offence alleged to have been committed by him. (4) No complaint under sub-section (2) shall be made by the Public Prosecutor except with the previous sanction (a) of the State Government, in the case of a person who is or has been the Governor of that State or a Minister of that Government; (b) of the State Government, in the case of any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State; (c) of the Central Government, in any other case. (5) No Court of Session shall take cognizance of an offence under sub-section (2) unless the complaint is made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. (6) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, to make a complaint in respect of that offence before a Magistrate having jurisdiction or the power of such Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint." She further argued that since the aforesaid provision clearly mandates that no prosecution can go on, except apart a complaint made by a person aggrieved, whereas the matter is proceeding for the prosecution of defamation under Section 500 of IPC, on a police case and the learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance and issued process, which is unlawful in the eyes of law. 4 A482 No. 7279 of 2025 In support of her contentions, she has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Others, reported in [(2016) 7 SCC 221] and has referred Paragraph no. 207 of the aforesaid judgment, which is extracted as under: "207. Another aspect required to be addressed pertains to issue of summons. Section 199 CrPC envisages filing of a complaint in court. In case of criminal defamation neither can any FIR be filed nor can any direction be issued under Section 156(3) CrPC. The offence has its own gravity and hence, the responsibility of the Magistrate is more. In a way, it is immense at the time of issue of process. Issue of process, as has been held in Rajindra Nath Mahato v. T. Ganguly, is a matter of Judicial determination and before issuing a process, the Magistrate has to examine the complainant. In Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha it has been held that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Court, though in a different context, has observed that there lies responsibility and duty on the Magistracy to find whether the accused concerned should be legally responsible for the offence charged for. Only on satisfying that the law casts liability or creates offence against the juristic person or the persons impleaded, then only process would be issued. At that stage the court would be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of the private complaint as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly. Vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice but it would not be the means to wreak personal vengeance. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, a two-Judge Bench has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course." Referring the aforesaid, she submits that the case of present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of judgment aforesaid. She has further placed reliance on judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court given in the cases of B. N. John Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in [AIR 2025 SC 759] and Praveen Arya Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another reported in [(2025) SCC OnLine Del 3699] and has referred paragraph nos. 44 and 45 of the judgment of Praveen Arya, which are quoted hereunder: "44. The contention of the Respondent No. 2 was that the bar of Section 199 5 A482 No. 7279 of 2025 Cr. P.C. comes into play only when the offence complained is alone of Section 500 IPC. If there are other offences alleged in the Complaint, then the Police is mandatorily required to register the FIR. If the FIR is validly registered and subsequently, some provision is struck down as unconstitutional, investigation undertaken on such FIR would not become nonest and therefore, the Chargesheet had been valldly filed for the offence under Section 500 Cr. P.C.

45. This argument is totally fallacious for what has been barred at the- beginning itself, cannot be validated by taking support of the other Sections. Irrespective of there being other Sections Involved in the FIR or not, the cognizance under Section 500 could have been only on the Complaint and not on the FIR." Concluding her argument, she submits that the whole proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 143 of 2019, wherein the chargesheet has been filed and the cognizance is taken and process has been issued, is impermissible under the law and, therefore, the aforesaid proceedings may be quashed. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance under Sections 66D, 67 of IT Act read with Section 500 of IPC. He added that after further investigation, the 'Parcha' has been prepared and the charges under Sections 66D and 67 of IT Act are seems to be dropped, but the same can very well adjudicated before the learned trial court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that initially an FIR was lodged by the informant, while alleging that some words have been written which defames the reputation of the informant and, thereafter, the chargesheet was filed under Section 500 of IPC and Sections 66A & 66D of IT Act. Whereafter, the Magistrate has taken cognizance under Sections 500 IPC and Sections 66D and 67 of IT Act. While examining the contentions of learned counsel for the applicant as well as the records in the paper book available before this Court, it is apparent that Annexure No. 6 is appended, which seems to be a 'Parcha' prepared by the Investigating Officer on 14th of October, 2021, wherein charges under Sections 66D and 67 of IT Act have 6 A482 No. 7279 of 2025 been dropped. The aforesaid 'Parcha' whether placed before the trial court or not, could not be ensured by learned Counsel for the State, as no counter affidavit has been filed. This Court, prima facie, finds that if the Investigating Officer has dropped the offence/charges under Section 66D and 67 of IT Act, the case cannot run as a police case, as the same is not permitted under the law, as the offence under Section 500 of IPC would only remains and so far as the provision envisaged under Section 199 of Cr.P.C., no prosecution for defamation can go on and no Court shall take cognizance of an offence except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved. Further, the offence under Section 500 of IPC comes under Chapter XX of IPC and, therefore, the complaint case can only run in such matters, on the complaint made by the person aggrieved. Prima facie, this Court finds merits in the case, thus, the matter requires consideration. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 27th of October, 2025. In the meantime, opposite parties may file their counter affidavits. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings arising out of FIR No. 0143 of 2019, under Sections 500 IPC and Sections 66A, 66D and 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda, shall remain stayed. September 18, 2025 kkv/ (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the chargesheet dated 18.06.2019 in Case No. 115 of 2022, arising out of FIR No. 0143 of 2019, under Sections 500 IPC and Sections 66A, 66D and 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda and summoning order dated 14.08.2025 passed by CJM, Gonda. Briefly stated facts are that an FIR was lodged under Sections 500 IPC & Sections 66A, 66D and 67 of I.T. Act, against the applicant, while making allegation that the complainant, Karan Bhushan Singh received a video, a day before i.e. on 13.05.2019, by a reporter/Journalist on his WhatsApp No.9838989000 and the person had sent this video to him from his Mobile No.9415999959, after copying the said video alongwith the post below the said video, posted by a person from his Mobile No. 8090203000 on All R vp Group, wherein it was written that " the person in the said video is Karan Bhushan Singh son of MP from BJP Kaiserganj, Brij Bhushan Singh, who is openly buying votes and saying that he would send money to the house and immediate action from Election Commission 2 A482 No. 7279 of 2025 has been demanded." Submission put forth by learned counsel for applicant is that after the investigation, the chargesheet was filed under Section 500 of IPC and Sections 66A, 66D and 67 of IT Act, whereafter the learned Magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 14.08.2025 which is under challenge, wherein the cognizance was taken under Section 500 IPC and 66D and 67 of IT Act. She submits that further investigation proceeded and a 'Parcha' was prepared by the Investigating Officer concerned, which is appended as Annexure No. 6 at page 35 to the application, wherein it is mentioned that from Case Crime No. 143 of 2019, Section 66D and 67 of IT Act are dropped. She further argued that now the trial court cannot proceed in Case Crime No. 143 of 2019 as a police case, as only complaint case can lie for the offence under Section 500 IPC. Section 500 IPC reads as under: "500. Punishment for defamation:- Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." Referring the aforesaid, she submits that Section 199 of the Cr.P.C. clearly provides that so far as the prosecution for defamation is concerned, no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of Indian Penal Code, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Section 199 of Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereunder: "199. Prosecution for defamation. (1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence : Provided that where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the 3 A482 No. 7279 of 2025 Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, when any offence falling under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed against a person who, at the time of such commission, is the President of India, the Vice-President of India, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Union Territory, or a Minister of the Union or of a State, or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions a Court of Session may take cognizance of such offence, without the case being committed to it, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor. (3) Every complaint referred to in sub-section (2) shall set forth the facts which constitute the offence alleged, the nature of such offence and such other particulars as are reasonably sufficient to give notice to the accused of the offence alleged to have been committed by him. (4) No complaint under sub-section (2) shall be made by the Public Prosecutor except with the previous sanction (a) of the State Government, in the case of a person who is or has been the Governor of that State or a Minister of that Government; (b) of the State Government, in the case of any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State; (c) of the Central Government, in any other case. (5) No Court of Session shall take cognizance of an offence under sub-section (2) unless the complaint is made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. (6) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, to make a complaint in respect of that offence before a Magistrate having jurisdiction or the power of such Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint." She further argued that since the aforesaid provision clearly mandates that no prosecution can go on, except apart a complaint made by a person aggrieved, whereas the matter is proceeding for the prosecution of defamation under Section 500 of IPC, on a police case and the learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance and issued process, which is unlawful in the eyes of law. 4 A482 No. 7279 of 2025 In support of her contentions, she has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Others, reported in [(2016) 7 SCC 221] and has referred Paragraph no. 207 of the aforesaid judgment, which is extracted as under: "207. Another aspect required to be addressed pertains to issue of summons. Section 199 CrPC envisages filing of a complaint in court. In case of criminal defamation neither can any FIR be filed nor can any direction be issued under Section 156(3) CrPC. The offence has its own gravity and hence, the responsibility of the Magistrate is more. In a way, it is immense at the time of issue of process. Issue of process, as has been held in Rajindra Nath Mahato v. T. Ganguly, is a matter of Judicial determination and before issuing a process, the Magistrate has to examine the complainant. In Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha it has been held that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Court, though in a different context, has observed that there lies responsibility and duty on the Magistracy to find whether the accused concerned should be legally responsible for the offence charged for. Only on satisfying that the law casts liability or creates offence against the juristic person or the persons impleaded, then only process would be issued. At that stage the court would be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of the private complaint as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly. Vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice but it would not be the means to wreak personal vengeance. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, a two-Judge Bench has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course." Referring the aforesaid, she submits that the case of present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of judgment aforesaid. She has further placed reliance on judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court given in the cases of B. N. John Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in [AIR 2025 SC 759] and Praveen Arya Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another reported in [(2025) SCC OnLine Del 3699] and has referred paragraph nos. 44 and 45 of the judgment of Praveen Arya, which are quoted hereunder: "44. The contention of the Respondent No. 2 was that the bar of Section 199 5 A482 No. 7279 of 2025 Cr. P.C. comes into play only when the offence complained is alone of Section 500 IPC. If there are other offences alleged in the Complaint, then the Police is mandatorily required to register the FIR. If the FIR is validly registered and subsequently, some provision is struck down as unconstitutional, investigation undertaken on such FIR would not become nonest and therefore, the Chargesheet had been valldly filed for the offence under Section 500 Cr. P.C.

45. This argument is totally fallacious for what has been barred at the- beginning itself, cannot be validated by taking support of the other Sections. Irrespective of there being other Sections Involved in the FIR or not, the cognizance under Section 500 could have been only on the Complaint and not on the FIR." Concluding her argument, she submits that the whole proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 143 of 2019, wherein the chargesheet has been filed and the cognizance is taken and process has been issued, is impermissible under the law and, therefore, the aforesaid proceedings may be quashed. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance under Sections 66D, 67 of IT Act read with Section 500 of IPC. He added that after further investigation, the 'Parcha' has been prepared and the charges under Sections 66D and 67 of IT Act are seems to be dropped, but the same can very well adjudicated before the learned trial court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that initially an FIR was lodged by the informant, while alleging that some words have been written which defames the reputation of the informant and, thereafter, the chargesheet was filed under Section 500 of IPC and Sections 66A & 66D of IT Act. Whereafter, the Magistrate has taken cognizance under Sections 500 IPC and Sections 66D and 67 of IT Act. While examining the contentions of learned counsel for the applicant as well as the records in the paper book available before this Court, it is apparent that Annexure No. 6 is appended, which seems to be a 'Parcha' prepared by the Investigating Officer on 14th of October, 2021, wherein charges under Sections 66D and 67 of IT Act have 6 A482 No. 7279 of 2025 been dropped. The aforesaid 'Parcha' whether placed before the trial court or not, could not be ensured by learned Counsel for the State, as no counter affidavit has been filed. This Court, prima facie, finds that if the Investigating Officer has dropped the offence/charges under Section 66D and 67 of IT Act, the case cannot run as a police case, as the same is not permitted under the law, as the offence under Section 500 of IPC would only remains and so far as the provision envisaged under Section 199 of Cr.P.C., no prosecution for defamation can go on and no Court shall take cognizance of an offence except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved. Further, the offence under Section 500 of IPC comes under Chapter XX of IPC and, therefore, the complaint case can only run in such matters, on the complaint made by the person aggrieved. Prima facie, this Court finds merits in the case, thus, the matter requires consideration. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date. Steps be taken within a week. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 27th of October, 2025. In the meantime, opposite parties may file their counter affidavits. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings arising out of FIR No. 0143 of 2019, under Sections 500 IPC and Sections 66A, 66D and 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda, shall remain stayed. September 18, 2025 kkv/ (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)