The inherent power to quash criminal proceedings cannot be exercised solely based on a compromise or a complainant's affidavit when prima facie evidence of a crime involving digital identity misuse exists, as such offences transcend private disputes.

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Ms. Rajni Soren, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3.

2. By filing the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-

“(1) Quash FIR No. 82/2025 Dated 6.2.2025 registered at Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja u/s 66C of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. (Annexure P/1);

(2) Quash Chargesheet No. 723/2025 dated 22.12.2025 u/s 238 BNS and 66 C of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 submitted before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G);

(3) Quash order dated 23.11.2025 passed in "State of Chhattisgarh v. Sandeep Kumar Banjare Criminal Case No. 11451/2025 whereby the Chief Judicial magistrate, Ambikapur, District Sarguja has taken cognizance of the impugned chargesheet;

(4) Pass any other order the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR dated 06.02.2025, registered under Section 66C of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, as the same are nothing but a result of personal discord between the petitioner and the complainant. It is contended that the FIR was lodged by the complainant against an unknown person in a fit of anger and emotional distress arising out of a strained personal relationship, and not on account of any genuine criminal intent attributable to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the complainant herself has subsequently realized the mistake and has executed a duly notarized affidavit dated 28.02.2026, categorically stating that the FIR was lodged due to misunderstanding and disappointment, and that she does not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings any further. Learned counsel would submit that continuation of the proceedings, despite such clear and unequivocal stand of the complainant, would serve no fruitful purpose and would only result in unnecessary harassment to both parties, particularly when the complainant herself apprehends adverse impact on her personal life, career and future prospects.

4. Learned counsel also submits that even from a bare perusal of the FIR and the material collected during investigation, the essential ingredients constituting the offence under Section 66C of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Section 238 of the B.N.S. are not made out against the petitioner. It is argued that the allegations are vague and do not disclose any dishonest or fraudulent intention as required under the said provisions, and therefore, the continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law.

5. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narendra Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Kapil Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No.1217/2022 learned counsel submits that even in cases involving serious offences, the High Court is empowered to quash proceedings where the chances of conviction are bleak and the continuation of trial would be a futile exercise, particularly when the parties have amicably resolved their dispute. It is thus submitted that in the present case, where the complainant is not supporting the prosecution and has expressed her unwillingness to proceed, the possibility of conviction is remote.

6. It is further urged that the petitioner is a government servant and the pendency of the present criminal case is causing irreparable harm to his reputation, career and future prospects. Since the trial has not yet commenced and charges are yet to be framed, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the proceedings are