IMPORTANT POINT
Invoking its extraordinary power under Article 226 of Constitution, Court has no jurisdiction to examine correctness or otherwise of allegation.

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State.

2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the F.I.R. in connection with Cyber Crime & Economic Offence, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.11 of 2022 registered under Section 228(A) & 500 of the I.P.C. read with Section 67(A) of the I.T. Act corresponding to C.T. Case No.1452 of 2022 pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.

3. The background facts of the case are that, on 01.02.2022 Opp. Party No.5 namely Bishnu Priya Mohapatra, w/o. Kailash Ch. Mohapatra lodged a complaint before the SP, CID, CB, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack alleging therein that she was victim in Khandagiri P.S. Case No.372 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 376/384/506, I.P.C. In the said case the present Petitioner is an accused, and after registration of the said F.I.R., the Petitioner was arrested on 22.07.2019. Before his arrest, the Petitioner on 20.06.2019 misusing the social media, in his Facabook account had posted some derogatory, defamatory and misleading information against her (Opp. Party No.5), wherein he too had uploaded the F.I.R. copy of Khandagiri P.S. Case No.372 of 2018. It is further alleged that, 12 persons liked the aforesaid derogatory/ defamatory posting in the Facebook. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Bhubaneswar Cyber Crime & Economic Offence No.11 of 2012 registered the complaint under Sections 228(A) & 500 of the I.P.C. and under Section 67(A) of the I.T. Act against the Petitioner.

4. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the allegations are false, baseless and the Petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence/crime, for which F.I.R. has been lodged. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there is absolutely no prima facie case and material constituting the offence is made out against the Petitioner under Section 67(A) of the I.T. Act from the F.I.R. story and other connected materials.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that, as far as the offence under Sections 228(A) & 500, I.P.C. are concerned, both the offences prescribes punishment for a period of only two years imprisonment. According to the learned counsel, as per the F.I.R., the alleged occurrence took place on 20.06.2019 and the complaint was lodged with the police on 05.03.2022, which is quite belated. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner seeking quashing of the F.I.R. is that the cause of action of the alleged incident has taken place at Baseli Sahi, Puri, whereas the complaint has been registered by the Cyber Crime & Economic Offence at Bhubaneswar, and therefore it has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate into the complaint. He further submits that, the occurrence spot being 60 kms. away from the Police Station where the F.I.R. has been lodged, the investigation into the said F.I.R. cannot be proceeded and the same is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and submitted that the investigation of the case cannot be interfered with by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. Having considered the arguments placed by both the parties, on perusal of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in his application and upon appreciation thereof, it is found that prima facie there are materials depicting commission of the offence as alleged. There being ample materials to proceed with the investigation, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the merit of the F.I.R.

8. It is the settled principle of law that, invoking its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of