IMPORTANT POINT
The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, and the courts have a limited jurisdiction to consider whether there is sufficient material to proceed further against the accused.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR bearing No.102/2022, registered at Police Station Cyber Police Station Dwarka, Delhi for offences punishable under Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (`IT Act') and all subsequent criminal proceedings emanating thereof.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 05.09.2022, a complaint was lodged by the complainant wherein she had alleged that she had been subjected to harassment for last four weeks through Instagram App. It was alleged that the accused had made fifth account on Instagram for the sole purpose of bullying and harassing the complainant. It was further alleged that the accused persons had been publishing photographs, abusive content and rumours about the complainant on Instagram which is a public platform. As alleged, the said rumours had been spread after the engagement of the complainant and messages had also been sent to her friends wherein abusive content had been shared with them. On these allegations, the present FIR was registered on 05.09.2022. During Investigation, chargesheet was filed on 13.12.2023 for offences punishable under Sections 419/500/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act, and the learned Trial Court was pleased to take cognizance of the said offences.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no incriminating evidence against him. It is submitted that the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence, but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, and that no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a magistrate as per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. It is further stated that the present accused/petitioner has been charge-sheeted under Section 419/500/34 IPC and Sections 66C/66D of the IT Act without any iota of evidence, and a bare reading of the above sections shows that the offence of cheating by impersonation has been invoked against the petitioner. However, it is argued that in the present case, among the Instagram IDs which had been given by the complainant, not a single ID was created using the name of the complainant and neither her credentials were hacked nor any person had committed any act of cheating using the identity of the complainant. It is further submitted that the evidence i.e., screenshots given by the complainant show private conversations on Instagram between the complainant and other persons, and the other screenshots shared by her appear to be fabricated by the complainant herself. It is also argued by the learned counsel that neither any Instagram ID was found registered on the mobile number or email id of the petitioner, nor the login details reveal that the Instagram IDs in question were logged in on the devices of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the statement of one Anurag Malyala has been recorded, who knew the complainant since childhood, but Mr. Anurag Malyala was in United Kingdom in the year 2023 and it is not possible for the I.O. to record his statement on 13.10.2023. It is further submitted that the entire story of the prosecution is concocted and contradicts from the documents and screenshots provided in the chargesheet. Therefore, it is prayed that the present FIR and all consequent proceedings be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned APP for the State opposes the present petition and submits that chargesheet in this case has been filed under Section 419/500/34 of IPC and Sections 66C/66D of the IT Act and learned Trial Court has taken cognizance of the same. It is argued that there are serious allegations of impersonation and creation of fake social media accounts with the intent of harassing and bullying the complainant. It is further submitted that charges h