The court determined that both Section 67 of the IT Act and Section 509 IPC can be applied concurrently arising from the same facts, supporting the validity of the charge-sheet.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi J.

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Avishesh Kumar Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, the applicant has prayed for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet dated 02.10.2024 arising out of Case Crime No.0349 of 2023, under Section 509 I.P.C. and Section 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station Chhapiya, District Gonda, cognizance and summoning order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Room No.2, Gonda in Criminal Case No.4321 of 2025, along with entire proceedings of the aforesaid case.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 21.12.2023 stating that some unknown person had created a facebook account in the name of Dev Gautam. He has prepared some obscene photographs of the informant’s daughter and is posting the same along with objectionable comments causing a serious mental agony to the informant and his daughter.

4. Assailing the validity of the charge-sheet and the summoning order, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Information Technology Act is a special Act. He has drawn attention of the court to the statutory provisions contained in Sections 67 & 81 of the Act. Relying upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharat Babu Digumarti Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 2 SCC 18 , the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that when the applicant is charged for commission of offence under Section 67 of Information Technology Act, he cannot simultaneously be tried for the offence under Section 509 I.P.C., which is a general provision.

5. At the stage of examining the validity of charge sheet and the summoning order the court has merely to examine whether the allegations leveled in the F.I.R. and the material collected during investigation make out a case for trial of the accused person for the alleged offences.

6. A copy of the material posted by the applicant on social media site has been annexed with the application, which shows that the content of message posted by the applicant is intended to insult the modesty of daughter of the opposite party no.2. This material exhibits an obscene photograph of the daughter of opposite party no.2 and it can be seen by any person connected to the social media, including the daughter of the applicant.

7. In the statements of the informant and the victim they have stated that a fake id has been created on facebook in the name of Dev Gautam and edited obscene photograph and objectionable story have been posted thereon causing a serious mental agony to the informant and his daughter. The victim further stated that she does not know any person named Dev Gautam and she had not shared her photo with any person.

8. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that a wedding proposal of her elder sister was settled with the applicant but it could not get materialized. Due to the aforesaid reason the applicant has created the fake facebook profile in the name of Dev Gautam and has posted obscene photographs and objectionable comments thereon and he has tagged several persons residing in the informant’s village in that post.

9. After investigation the Investigating Officer has submitted a charge s