Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1960

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C. DOSHI, J.
Jatin Jagdishbhai Panchal – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat and Another – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside FIR/Order) No. 2743 of 2020
Decided On : 02-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Jigar K. Mehta, Krunal S. Mehta
For the Respondent: Soham Joshi

The court emphasized that quashing of a criminal FIR, especially in cases involving minors, should only occur when no prima facie case is established, maintaining the integrity of the trial process.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Legal provisions regarding inherent powers restraining premature tab on trial process - Petitioner alleged to have lured a minor with social media interaction and filmed non-consensual content, invoking serious charges under IPC and POCSO Act - Presentation of scripted video findings to indicate non-applicability of charges is insufficient to grant relief from prosecution. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 10, 18)

(B) Criminal Offence - Definition and evaluation - Court must ascertain the presence of essential elements of the alleged crimes, particularly in sensitive cases involving minors, where the presumption of culpable mental states applies and evidentiary burdens rest with the accused. (Paras 9, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of molesting a minor through social media interactions and filming objectionable content, petitioned for FIR quashing invoking non-applicability of POCSO provisions and claiming lack of substantive allegations. Regulatory scrutiny of social media content and established legal thresholds necessitate thorough examination rather than dismissal.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner's actions were deemed integral to an ongoing investigation; FIR maintained relevance and sufficiency in allegations to warrant prosecution under serious sexual assault statutes.

Issues: Whether the FIR displays any substantive evidence of the charged crimes or is a result of malicious intent by the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: The trial should proceed given the presented accusations and evidentiary foundations carried inherent necessity for judicial examination, upholding the seriousness of offenses against minors.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. commencement of legal proceedings. (Para 1 , 7)
2. petitioner's arguments on insufficiency of claims. (Para 3)
3. opposition's arguments in support of trial. (Para 4 , 5)
4. court's binding decision on fir and trial relevancy. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. conclusion on quashing application. (Para 17 , 18)

ORDER :

1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside FIR being C.R.No.A – 11191037200058 registered with Odhav Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A) of the IPC, u/s 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act, u/s 66(d) of the IT Act as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1 The complainant is the mother of victim. That on 19.1.2020, when the victim remained busy with her mobile phone all day, the complainant took her mobile phone and saw that there was a TikTok video on her mobile phone in which the victim and the petitioner were seen. This video was of the incident when the petitioner tried to take a selfie with the victim, she refused and the petitioner slapped her on her cheek and then took a selfie and in another video, the victim was crying and holding the feet of the petitioner.

2.2 On inquiry from the victim, the complainant found that on 12.1.2020, when the complainant along with his sister and aunt went to NID riverfront, she met the petitioner and thereafter, exchanged mobile phone numbers and later they were chatting on WhatsApp.

2.3 That on 18.1.2020, the victim again met the petitioner at NID riverfront, where TikTok video was made. Thus, the petitioner has lured and enticed the victim from 12/01/2020 till date, chatted with her on WhatsApp, made TikTok videos and molested her. Therefore, impugned FIR is filed.

2.4 Hence, present petition to quash and set aside the impugned FIR.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta for the petitioner would submit that the FIR u/s 354(A) of the IPC r/w sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act r/w section 66(d) of the IT Act has been levelled against the petitioner, but looking to the contents of the FIR, none of the offences are attracted. He would further submit that the FIR indicates nothing more than recording of scripted video of the victim. Apart from that, there is no other allegation levelled against the petitioner. He would further submit that recording of scripted video on tiktok platform is not an offence under section 7 of the POCSO Act having punishment u/s 8 of the POCSO Act. He would further submit that recording of scripted video of the victim girl does not amount to an act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration and therefore, he would submit that since essential ingredients of offences u/s 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act are missing in the FIR, the petitioner should not be sent for facing the trial under the provisions of the POCSO Act.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Mehta would further submit that offence u/s 66(d) of the IT Act is also not attracted in the present case. He would further submit that as per section 66(d) of the IT Act, if someone has been cheated by personation by using any computer resource or communication device, he would be subjected to punishment upto three years or fine. In the present case, the FIR on its face value does not indicate that the victim was cheated by personation using any computer resource and in that circumstances, he would submit that since the FIR does not disclose any material against the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner may not be sent for facing the trial.

3.2 It is also argued that allegation of recording video on tiktok platform is also insufficient to invite allegation of outraging modesty of a woman, which attracts offence u/s 354A of the IPC.

3.3 Upon such submissions, Learned advocate for the petitioner prays to allow the petition by quashing and setti