[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Sheikh Imran Khan vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:10221-DB
NAFR
Digitally
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
signed by
BABLU
BABLU RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA BHANARKAR
BHANARKAR Date:
2026.02.28
10:16:29
+0530
CRMP No. 529 of 2026
Sheikh Imran Khan S/o Abdul Kayyum, Aged About 41 Years Caste
Musalman, R/o Maudahapara, Naharpara, Raipur, Police Station And
District Kondagaon (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer,
Police Station Kondagaon District Kondagaon (C.G.)
2 - Karan Uike, S/o Late R.S. Uike, Aged About 58 Years R/o Prem
Nagar, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.P.K.Patel, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate
No.1-State
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
27.02.2026
1. Heard Mr.P.K.Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for
respondent No.1/State.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
following relief(s):
"1. allow this petition,
2. quash the charges, entire challan / charge
sheet /criminal proceedings in Case No. 777/2025
"State Vs. Sheikh Imran Khan, pending in the Court
of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kondagaon,
District Kondagaon (C.G.), arising out of the crime
No. 46/2025, registered at Police Station:
Kondagaon District Kondagaon (C.G.), and the
Petitioner be discharged from all the charges, in the
interest of justice.
3. pass any other order / orders, as the Hon'ble High
Court may deems fit and appropriate under the facts
and circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice."
3. The petitioner submits that Respondent No. 2 lodged a written
complaint alleging that the petitioner had posted certain obscene
images and objectionable articles on his Facebook ID and
circulated the same through social media platforms, including
WhatsApp and Facebook, thereby outraging the religious feelings
of the complainant and hurting sentiments associated with
Hinduism.
4. On the basis of the said complaint, the Police Station Kondagaon
registered Crime No. 46/2025 against the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 66(A) and 67 of the Information
Technology Act.
5. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted a final report/charge sheet before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.).
Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate framed charges
against the petitioner under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.
6. The petitioner contends that the Investigating Officer, without
conducting a proper and fair inquiry, mechanically submitted the
charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. It is further contended
that the learned Judicial Magistrate, without proper application of
mind and in a routine manner, framed charges against the
petitioner, which are wholly illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law.
Hence, this petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of
the entire charge sheet and the material collected during
investigation would demonstrate that no offence under Section
299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or Section 67 of the
Information Technology Act is made out against the petitioner. It is
contended that the charge framed by the learned Magistrate is
unsustainable in law and is liable to be quashed. It is further
submitted that there is no material whatsoever in the charge sheet
to establish that the petitioner made any derogatory remarks or
posted any content with the deliberate and malicious intention of
insulting Hindu religious texts, saints, or deities through words,
gestures, visible representations, or electronic means. The
essential ingredients required to constitute the offence are
conspicuously absent.
8. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to Section 299
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which provides that the act
must be done with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging
the religious feelings of any class of citizens by insulting its
religion or religious beliefs through words, signs, visible
representations, or electronic means. It is submitted that the sine
qua non for attracting the said provision is the existence of
deliberate and malicious intent.
9. It is argued that the materials collected during investigation do not
disclose any such deliberate or malicious intention on the part of
the petitioner. In the absence of this essential ingredient, the
offence under Section 299 of the BNS, 2023 is not made out.
Similarly, the ingredients of Section 67 of the Information
Technology Act are also not satisfied, as there is no legally
admissible material to establish that the petitioner transmitted or
published any content falling within the mischief of the said
provision. Learned counsel submits that the Investigating Officer
has mechanically filed the charge sheet without proper inquiry or
application of mind, and the learned Magistrate has framed the
charges in a routine manner without examining whether the
foundational ingredients of the alleged offences were prima facie
satisfied. It is further submitted that this Court, in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has ample jurisdiction to quash the
charge sheet, the order framing charges, and the entire criminal
proceedings where the allegations, even if taken at their face
value, do not constitute any offence. In view of the above
submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to quash
the charge framed under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act,
along with the entire charge sheet and consequential criminal
proceedings pending against the petitioner, in the interest of
justice.
10. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
State/respondent No.1 vehemently opposes the submissions
advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that the FIR,
charge sheet, and the subsequent framing of charges clearly
disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Section
299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67 of the
Information Technology Act. A prima facie case has been made
out against the petitioner. Learned Government Advocate submits
that the scope of this Court in proceedings under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is limited to
examining whether the allegations, on their face, disclose a
cognizable offence. It is not the function of this Court at this stage
to conduct a detailed inquiry or assess the merits of the evidence.
11. It is further submitted that the allegations in the FIR are specific
and point to deliberate acts by the petitioner, through electronic
platforms, which are capable of outraging the religious feelings of
the complainant and the community. The materials collected
during investigation support the prima facie existence of these
acts. Learned Government Advocate contends that the
petitioner's assertion that no offence is made out is a matter of
defence and involves disputed questions of fact. These matters
cannot be gone into in proceedings seeking quashment. Whether
the petitioner acted with malicious intent or whether the alleged
content actually outraged religious feelings are issues to be
examined by the learned Trial Court after full trial and appreciation
of evidence. It is also submitted that the Investigating Officer has
conducted the investigation in accordance with law and submitted
the charge sheet after collecting material to substantiate the
offences alleged. The learned Judicial Magistrate, on being
satisfied with the prima facie material, has rightly framed the
charges under the relevant provisions. Learned Government
Advocate further submits that quashing the FIR, charge sheet, or
the charges at this stage would amount to pre-empting the trial
and would impede the statutory and constitutional obligation of the
State to protect the religious sentiments of citizens and maintain
public order. In view of the foregoing, it is submitted that the
present petition is devoid of merit and is an attempt to stifle the
criminal proceedings at a premature stage. The State, therefore,
prays that the petition seeking quashment of the FIR, charge
sheet, and consequential proceedings may be dismissed.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Government Advocate appearing for the State at considerable
length. We have also carefully perused the FIR, the charge sheet,
the order framing charges, and other relevant documents placed
on record, including certified copies of the criminal proceedings.
13. The petitioner challenges the registration of Crime No. 46/2025 at
Police Station Kondagaon, the filing of the charge sheet, and the
subsequent framing of charges under Section 299 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter "BNS") and Section
67 of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner contends that
the allegations are wholly baseless and that the criminal
proceedings have been initiated without proper inquiry or
investigation.
14. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate the settled legal position
regarding petitions for quashment of FIR or charge sheet. The
power of the Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is extraordinary and limited. The Court is
not expected to conduct a detailed inquiry into the veracity of the
allegations or to appreciate evidence as if conducting a trial. The
only question is whether the allegations, on their face, disclose a
cognizable offence and whether there exists any prima facie
material to proceed with the trial.
15. On a careful perusal of the FIR, the charge sheet, and other
materials, we find that the allegations are specific. They state that
the petitioner deliberately and maliciously posted content through
electronic platforms, which is capable of outraging the religious
feelings of the complainant. The offence under Section 299 BNS
requires deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious
feelings, and the materials collected during investigation indicate
that the alleged acts of the petitioner fall within the ambit of the
provision. Likewise, Section 67 of the IT Act deals with publication
of obscene material through electronic media, and the material
collected during investigation prima facie discloses the elements
of this offence.
16. The petitioner's submission that there was no malice or deliberate
intention, or that the alleged acts were of a civil nature, essentially
raises questions of fact and defence. These contentions cannot
be adjudicated in a quashment petition. The Court cannot weigh
evidence or decide credibility at this stage. The framing of
charges by the learned Judicial Magistrate was done upon
consideration of the material placed on record by the Investigating
Officer and is in accordance with law.
17. With regard to the petitioner's contention that the Investigating
Officer did not properly inquire into the matter, it is observed that
the Court cannot interfere with the investigation unless it is shown
to be wholly illegal, arbitrary, or mala fide. Mere dissatisfaction
with the investigation or reliance on a different interpretation of
facts does not warrant interference. There is no material on record
to suggest that the investigation was conducted in a manner
contrary to law or that the charge sheet was filed without basis.
18. It is also noted that the petitioner has alternative remedies
available, including raising all contentions and challenging the
evidence before the learned Trial Court. The learned Magistrate
will have the opportunity to examine the materials, hear the
parties, and adjudicate the issues relating to intention, insult, or
obscenity in accordance with law.
19. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that the allegations made in the FIR and the materials
collected during investigation disclose a cognizable offence
against the petitioner. The petition appears to be an attempt to
pre-empt the trial at a premature stage and is devoid of merit. No
case is made out for interference under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
20. Consequently, we find no merit in the present petition. The same
is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu
