Dinesh v. State Of Rajasthan Through P.P

Deepika Sharma S/o Shri Naval Kishor Khati, R/o Meera Gate, Holi Dk Khant, Bundi Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/04/2026

By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No.358/2016, registered with Police Station Sadar Bundi, District Bundi for the offence punishable under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short ‘IT Act’) along with the charge- sheet submitted against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 66A of the IT Act and 354A IPC before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant-respondent No.2 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. She has lodged the impugned FIR against him with the allegation that the petitioner has sent some obscene and abusive language messages to her on her mobile phone. Counsel submits [2026:RJ-JP:14623] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6267/2016] that on the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the aforementioned FIR was registered against the petitioner for the above stated offences.

Learned counsel submits that so far as the offence under Section 66A of the IT Act is concerned, the same has already been struck down by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2015 SC 1523. Hence, under these circumstances, charge-sheet could not have been submitted against the petitioner for the above offence. He further submits that so far as the allegation of sending obscene and abusive language messages is concerned, there is no proof available on the record to show whether the above-mentioned messages as shown on the screenshots annexed were actually ever sent by the petitioner, hence, no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act for verification of the same has been annexed with the charge-sheet. Hence, under these circumstances, the impugned proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR are liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, the counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and Others reported in AIR 2015 SC 180.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

Perusal of the record indicates that the complainant- respondent No.2 is the wife of the petitioner and she has lodged the impugned FIR against him with the allegation that the [2026:RJ-JP:14623] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6267/2016] petitioner after abusing and beating her, had thrown her out of her matrimonial home, for which she has lodged a separate complaint against the petitioner and the petitioner is facing trial in the aforesaid case before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bundi. Allegations have been levelled by her against the petitioner that he sent some obscene and abusive language messages to her in order to mentally harass her. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner under Section 66A of the IT Act and 354A IPC.

This Court is well aware of the fact that the legality and constitutional validity of Section 66A of the IT Act was assailed before the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Shreya Singhal (supra), wherein the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court has struck down the provision contained under Section 66A of the IT Act by holding the same to be violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Under these circumstances, there was no reason or occasion available with the Investigating Agency to submit charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 66-A of the IT Act.

In view of the aforesaid and the law propounded by the Apex Court in the case of Shreya Singhal (supra), the proceedings pending against the petitioner qua the offence under Section 66A of the IT Act stand quashed and set-aside.

Now, this Court proceeds to deal with the other submission made by counsel for the petitioner with regard to the allegation for the offence under Section 354A IPC. [2026:RJ-JP:14623] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6267/2016]

Whether these alleged messages have been sent by the petitioner from his mobile phone to the complainant-respondent No.2 on WhatsApp or not and what would be the impact of not filing the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act? These facts cannot be adjudicated by this Court at this stage and the same would be appreciated by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage.

The stay application and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/18