Court No. - 68

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38967 of 2022

Applicant :- Nandini Sachan

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Uday Narain Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Om Prakash

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

Heard Mr. Uday Narain Singh, learned counsel for the

applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Mr. Om Prakash,

learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by

applicant for quashing the cognizance order dated 03.08.2022

passed by Judicial Magistrate as well as charge sheet dated

24.7.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case

No.13440 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.217 of 2022,

under Section 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act,

Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi pending in the court of

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi. Further prayer has been made

to stay the further proceeding of above mentioned criminal

case.

In short, the facts in brief are that the impugned FIR has been

lodged by the informant on 31.5.2022 against the applicant and

unknown persons alleging that 1 to 2 months ago, some

unknown persons with different mobile numbers and I.Ds.,

obtained photo of the informant from social media and while

tempering with the photo as well as while using abusive words,

viral the same on internet for which the informant has also

given an application before cybre thana.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the

applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to

pressurize and harass the applicant, in fact, no such incident has

taken place. The real fact is that the son of opposite party no.2,

namely, Ankit Nagpal and applicant were doing training in the

year 2021 at HDFC Bank at Bangalore and during the training

period, the son of opposite party no.2 proposed to the applicant

and when the applicant denied for the same, the opposite party

no.2 tried to harass and obstructed in her marriage. It is further

alleged that after completing the training, the victim returned

back to her home but the son of opposite party no.2

continuously calling the applicant and also send vulgar message

with social media platform, thereafter, the applicant lodged the

FIR on 11.02.2022 bearing Case Crime No.64 of 2022, under

Sections 354-ka, 354 gha, 506 IPC against the son of opposite

party no.2 in which after instigation charge sheet has been

submitted against the son of opposite party no.2 on 28.3.2022.

Further submission is that the present FIR is a counterblast to

the FIR lodged by the applicant against the son of opposite

party no.2. After investigation, the investigating officer has

submitted charge sheet against the applicant under Section 67 of

Information Technology (Amendment) Act in illegal and

arbitrary manner and the learned Magistrate took cognizance on

a printed proforma vide its order dated 03.03.2022 and

summoned the applicant to face trial. Further submission is that

in catena of judgments of this Court has held that the

summoning order on printed proforma without application of

judicial mind could not be passed. No ingredient of Section 67

of I.T. Act are existing under the facts and circumstances case,

therefore, no offence is made out against the applicant but the

court below has utterly failed to consider as no prima facie case

is made out against the applicant. He also pointed out certain

documents in support of his contention.

Per contra, supporting the impugned cognizance order, learned

AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2

vehemently opposed the contention raised by learned counsel

for the applicant and have submitted that during investigation,

the investigating officer found that some person including the

applicant, who is also a lady, is involved in the aforesaid illegal

activities, therefore, submitted charge sheet against the

applicant after recording statemen