The court held that prima facie evidence supported the framing of charges under the IPC and SC & ST Act, affirming that lack of territorial jurisdiction does not invalidate the investigation.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present revision petition for quashing the order of framing the charges dated 16.05.2023 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 506, 509 of Indian Penal Code ( for short IPC) and Section 3(2) va of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ( for short SC & ST Act) passed by learned Special Judge, Una, ( learned Trial Court). (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant (name being withheld to protect her identity) filed a complaint before the police asserting that her photo was altered by Sudarshan Singh and petitioner Rakesh Soni into an indecent photo which was made viral. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The informant produced one mobile phone and three photographs which were seized by the police. The police found that one altered photograph of the informant and one boy was sent to the informant’s mobile phone. She disclosed this fact to her sister, one or two women of the village and the boy’s mother. She did not disclose this incident to any person in order to maintain her social image. She attended a meeting on 28.5.2022 in PWD Rest House, Jol. Sudershan and petitioner- Rakesh Soni were also present in the meeting. The informant said that she and her family members had lodged a case against her sister-in-law’s relatives, however, Sudarshan was intermeddling in the informant’s family affairs. Whenever the informant’s sister-in- law used to leave her matrimonial home, he was providing her shelter. This led to an altercation. Sudarshan and petitioner Rakesh Soni openly stated that obscene photographs of the informant were in their mobile phone. In this manner, they tarnished the informant’s image. The police associated Sudarashan and petitioner Rakesh Kumar with the investigation. The police seized their mobile phones and sent them to the RFSL, Dharamshala. As per the report of the analysis, WhatsApp chat containing the obscene photographs was recovered from the mobile phone. Some images with the same postures but different faces were found in the data extracted. The obscene image was found to be edited, however, no data related to the case was found in the mobile phones of Sudershan and petitioner Rakesh Kumar Soni. Informant belongs to a Scheduled Caste and the petitioner belongs to non scheduled caste. He and Sudarshan had threatened to make the obscene photo viral, kill the informant and insult her modesty. Hence, offences punishable under Sections 506 and 509 of IPC and Section 3(2) (va) of SC&ST Act were made out.

3. Learned Trial Court summoned the petitioner and co-accused and framed the charges against the petitioner and co-accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 506 and 509 of IPC and Section 3(2) (va) of SC& ST Act.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by learned Trial Court, the petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that the allegations against the petitioner are vague. No case is made out against the petitioner. Learned Trial Court erred in framing the charges. The informant was aspiring for the ticket in the Legislative Elections. The petitioner is the close aide of Sudarshan, who was the front-runner for the ticket. The informant filed a false complaint to stall the chances of Sudarshan. The Police of Police Station Amb lacked the territorial jurisdiction to register the case and carry out the investigation. No obscene photographs were found in the mobile phone of the petitioner. There is no independent evidence to substantiate the informant’s allegations. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by learned Trial of framing the charges be set aside.

5. I have heard Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petit