Inherent powers to quash proceedings are limited to preventing abuse of process or securing justice. A court should not conduct a mini-trial or weigh evidence at the summoning stage, as factual disputes and allegations of false implication must be adjudicated by the trial court.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.

2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash entire proceeding of Criminal Case no. 12299 of 2025 (State vs. Sabbir Ansari and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 78 of 2025 under sections 353(2), 196(1)(a), 3(5), 352 and 351(2) of BNS, PS- Anapara, District Sonbhadra and also quash charge sheet dated 13.5.2025 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 15.11.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) Court No. 3, Sonbhadra.

3. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party no. 2/informant lodged FIR bearing Case Crime no. 78 of 2025 under sections 353(2), 196(1)(a) and 3(5) of BNS against applicants and another co-accused alleging therein that applicants have posted anti-national posts along with objectionable post against Prime Minister of India with derogatory remarks. The posts are alleged to be shared/circulate from Facebook ID of a Pakistani Youtuber. The Facebook account of accused persons shows that almost every post are anti-national, against Prime Minster of India and Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh(RSS).

4. After conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet submitted against the applicants on dated 13.5.2025, whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken up vide impugned order dated 15.11.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.

5. Learned counsel for applicants contended that from perusal of FIR and Case Diary, no specific date and time of alleged incident has been mentioned. Informant has lodged the present FIR only with mala fide intention and ulterior motive. Allegations made in the FIR are vague and without substantial evidence and the FIR is a result of malicious intent to harass the applicants. Without looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Magistrate concerned has passed the order impugned in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind which is illegal, unjust and against the principles of law and as such entire proceeding initiated against the applicants are liable to be quashed and set aside, since basically allegation has been fastened only on the basis of a post on Facebook.

6. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application and submitted that entire arguments raised at the behest of applicants are subject matter of trial which involves appreciation of evidence and the same cannot be adjudicated at this stage, hence no interference is required.

7. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court notes that Social Media has caught the imagination of People. People express their views on the social networking site. They now access social media through various application and devices. People invariably post information and express their opinion freely and openly on the Social Media. However sometimes the line is crossed when such information is posted without understanding the consequence of such instances. One way, if we consider life has become very easy and easily accessible where people can get together and express their views on certain issues. It is one way very good where the views of the people are known to everyone. But sometimes the Social Media is misused where people post such comments which hurts the feelings of others and triggers disharmony on a large scale.

8. The Information technology Act, 2000, categorically makes one liable on any illegal content posted on Social Media. Section 66(A) o