ORDER

Prem Narayan Singh, J. - Invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has preferred this revision against the impugned order dated 12.07.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sarangpur, District-Rajgarh, in S.T. No.120/2018 by which the learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner under Sections 124A, 153A and 295A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'), Section 67A of Information Technology Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'IT Act') and Section 4 read with Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1986').

2. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that the respondent Nos. 2-Hemant Sharma and 3-Lakhan Yadav have filed a written complaint on 14.02.2018 against the petitioner at Police Station-Talen and on that basis, an First Information Report for the offences under Sections 295A, 153A, 124A of IPC and Section 67 of IT Act have been lodged. Further, after investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 295A, 153A(1), 124A of IPC, Section 67/67D of I.T. Act and Section 4/6 of the Act, 1986 has been filed. In the sequel thereof, after considering material available on charge-sheet, the learned trial Court has framed the charges as aforesaid by the impugned order dated 12.07.2018. Being aggrieved from that order, the petitioner has filed this revision.

3. In this revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the learned trial Court, overlooking the contents of the case, wrongly framed the charges against the petitioner. The complainants have not made any allegation against the present petitioner. The petitioner was not the original admin of the WhatsApp group and only when two other members had left the group, then the petitioner became admin of the group by default. The petitioner is in no way connected with the objectionable photographs because he has not shared or liked the photographs. It is also contented that since the petitioner has not created the said photographs, no prima-facie case regarding aforesaid offences is made out against the petitioner. Thus, he cannot be charged under aforesaid offences and it is requested to set aside the impugned order of framing charge and discharge the petitioner from the aforesaid charges for the offences under Sections 124A, 153A and 295A of IPC, Section 67A of IT Act and Section 4 read with Section 6 of the Act 1986.

4. On the contrary, learned Additional Advocate General has remonstrated that since the petitioner was the member of group, he has not left the group after seeing the objectionable photographs, he will be liable for the charges as aforesaid. It is further contended that as per WhatsApp rules, when a person avails the services of WhatsApp, he is bound to accept the terms and conditions regarding use of WhatsApp. If a person uses it otherwise than the terms prescribed, he cannot take protection that he is using it lawfully. In addition to that, it is also expostulated that at the stage of framing charges, only the strong suspicion of offence and a prima-facie case are required. Hence, this revision petition being devoid of merits, liable to be dismissed.

5. In backdrop of the rival submissions, the question for consideration arises as to whether the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court with regard to framing of aforesaid charges is suffering from impropriety, illegality and infirmity in the eyes of law and facts.

6. In view of aforesaid arguments, I have gone through the record, Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balwant Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 21, in which it has been held that for offences under Sections 124A, 153(1)(A) and 295A, Mens rea is an essential element of the offence. Shri A.K. Soni, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent