IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of fair and just investigation, clarified the power of further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and highlighted the non-compoundable nature of the offence under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, when committed against a woman.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Angami, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Nagaland.

2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner, Ms. Imtionenla Walling impugning the charge-sheet dated 22.07.2019 filed in G.R. Case No. 689/2018 arising out of Women P.S. Case No. 65/2018 which was filed against the petitioner under Section 506/509 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

3. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned charge-sheet No. 28/2019 dated 22.07.2019 and also prayed for setting aside the order dated 04.02.2021 passed in G.R. Case No. 689/2018, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dimapur had directed further investigation in the said case.

4. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are as follows:

(i) That on 25.09.2018, the respondent No. 2 Ms. Imkongnukshilla Imchen lodged an FIR (First Information Report) in the Women Police Station, Dimapur, inter-alia, alleging that the present petitioner and one Mr. Palzer Tshering Lepcha, who is a resident of Sikkim has been circulating the objectionable pictures of respondent No. 2 on the social media.

(ii) On receipt of the said FIR Women P.S. Case No. 65/2018 under Section 506/509 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was registered.

(iii) On the basis of the said P.S. case, G.R. Case No. 689/2018 was also registered and investigation was initiated. Ultimately, on completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet bearing No. 28/2019 on 22.07.2019 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur.

(iv) The G.R. Case No. 689/2018 was transferred to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dimapur, who issued the processes against the present petitioner and on 04.02.2021 the case was fixed for consideration of charges. However, on that day, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dimapur directed the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the impugned order, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dimapur has observed that there are no sufficient materials to proceed against the accused persons, however, instead of discharging the accused persons, including the present petitioner, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dimapur directed further investigation.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that when the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dimapur has observed in the impugned order that if the court were to proceed on the basis of materials available on record, there would be no material to exhibit or to prove during the stage of the trial and it would be an exercise in futility. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that considering the said observations, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dimapur could not have directed further investigations to be carried out by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of collecting additional evidence as it would amount to filling up the lacuna in the prosecution's case.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in view of the observations made by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dimapur in the impugned order, the only options available before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dimapur would have been to discharge the accused persons, including the present petitioner.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of sufficient materials in the charge- sheet, compelling the present petitioner to continue as an accused in the case would be an abuse of the process of court.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the learned Judicial Magistrate First