Uttarakhand High Court
23 April vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another on 23 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
2025:UHC:3030
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc Application No. 452 of 2025
23 April, 2025
Md Adil --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Another --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned D.A.G. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
This criminal misc. application is filed
under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. by the
petitioner/accused for quashing of the impugned
cognizance/summoning order dated 06.09.2019, the
impugned charge-sheet dated 22.08.2018 as well as
the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.4662 of
2019 (Case Crime No.93 of 2018), titled as "State vs.
Md. Adil" pending in the court of learned 2nd
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun under
Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and
Section 504 of IPC registered at Police Station Cantt,
District Dehradun.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused
2025:UHC:3030
would submit that the petitioner/accused is a young
student currently pursuing his B.Sc. in physics; that,
the allegations in the F.I.R. and the impugned
charge-sheet fails to disclose the commission of any
cognizable offence under Section 67 of Information
Technology Act and 504 of IPC; that, Section 67 of
Information Technology Act and 504 of IPC require
the mens rea but the same is missing in the charge-
sheet; that, there was a delay of three days in filing
the F.I.R.; that, URLs and mobile numbers cited in
F.I.R. have not been subjected to cyber forensic
examination to link them to the petitioner/accused;
that, F.I.R. lacks specific details regarding time, place
and manner of the alleged offences; that, a Facebook
group was created, wherein the photograph of the
complainant was shared comprised of only two
members namely the petitioner/accused (Md. Adil)
and one Kadambari Thapa; that, investigation was
not done properly; that, the present criminal
proceedings are liable to be quashed if charge-sheet
is tested at the anvil of the law propounded in the
case of 'State of Haryana & others vs. Chaudhary
Bhajan Lal & Others', (1992) SCC (Criminal) 426.
2025:UHC:3030
He would further rely upon a judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Sharat Babu
Digumarti vs. Government of NCT of Delhi', (2017)
2 SCC 18', wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
clarified that mere dissemination or circulation of
obscene content without mens rea (criminal intent)
does not attract the provisions of Section 67 of the
Information Technology Act.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel would
vehemently oppose the petition on the grounds inter
alia that the allegations in the F.I.R. are serious in
nature; that, it is alleged in the F.I.R. that the
petitioner/accused sent obscene messages,
comments and filthy abuses on the Facebook wall
and posted her photograph extracting it from her ID
with comments; that, after some time when she
deleted that comment, then petitioner/accused, from
another ID in the name of Dil Khan with URL Nos.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id100023583
664509 and https://www.facebook.com/mdaadil.ali,
sent the complainant obscene messages and
uploaded her pictures on the obscene sites and wrote
a message that whosoever wants to have fun with the
2025:UHC:3030
complainant, then they should make a comment and
sent the screenshot of this obscene site on her
Facebook ID messenger and wrote that he will make
the complainant a pornstar by the evening; that,
petitioner/accused gave his mobile numbers
8607575335 and 7004781088 to the complainant
and threatened her to call him back and when the
complainant talked to him, then the
petitioner/accused sent her a message that now he
will post mobile number of the complainant on the
obscene site with her photos and the complainant
will get calls from people.
He would further submit that the copies of
all these evidences were submitted alongwith the
complaint to police.
4. He would further submit that the
submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused are unsubstantiated; that, the
petitioner/accused has merely filed the opening page
of the charge-sheet only and has not annexed the
statements of the witnesses and other evidences
collected by the Investigating Officer forming part of
the charge-sheet.
2025:UHC:3030
5. Perused the record of the petition.
6. This Court finds that the
petitioner/accused has merely filed the opening page
of the charge-sheet under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. and
the photocopies of the order-sheet of the trial court.
The petitioner/accused has not filed the copies of the
statement of the witnesses recorded by the
Investigating Officer during the investigation and
other evidences collected by the Investigating Officer
forming part of the charge-sheet, therefore, the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused are not substantiated. Even
otherwise going through the contents of the F.I.R.,
the acts of the petitioner/accused do not only seem to
be perversion of mind, but also constitute the offence
of serious nature.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
trial court has rightly summoned the
petitioner/accused to face trial under the relevant
sections. Furthermore, the issues raised by the
petitioner/accused are, apparently, his defence and
are matter of evidence, which can only be appreciated
in the trial and should not be looked into by this
2025:UHC:3030
Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528
of B.N.S.S.
8. It is trite that the powers under Section 528
of B.N.S.S. have to be exercised sparingly, carefully
and with caution and only to prevent abuse of
process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of
justice.
9. In view of the above, this is not a fit case
where the powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. can
be exercised. Accordingly, the present C-528 petition
lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed in
limine.
10. The trial court concerned is directed to do
the needful in the matter.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
23.04.2025
Akash
