Advocates:
['Aditi Singhvi', '', 'Prasoon Agrawal', 'RAKESH KASHYAP', 'A G', 'SMITA JHA', 'S MIRZARAHIM UBWANINavin ShuklaSAKIB AHMEDSMITA JHA']

1

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Criminal Misc. Petition No.1236 of 2020

Order reserved on: 23-3-2021

Order delivered on: 6-4-2021

Rajendra Agrawal, S/o Motilal Agrawal, aged about 52 years, R/o

Housing Board, Kohkha, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, District Durg (C.G.),

Alternate Address Vile Parle, Mumbai (Maharashtra)

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer of Police Station

Supela, District Durg (C.G.)

2. Inderjeet Singh, S/o Late Dalbir Singh, Age 40 years, R/o B-25,

Phase-II, Surya Vihar, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, District Durg (C.G.)

---- Respondents

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner:

Ms. Aditi Singhi, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 / State: -

Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Deputy Govt. Advocate.

For Respondent No.2: -

Mr. Rahim Ubwani, Advocate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

C.A.V. Order

1. The petitioner is standing trial for offence under Sections 500 read

with Section 120B of the IPC and 67 of the Information Technology

Act, 2000 pursuant to registration of Crime No.68/2020 at Police

Station Supela, District Durg, dated 28-1-2020 and consequent filing

of charge-sheet against him. By this petition under Section 482 of the

CrPC, he seeks quashment of FIR and criminal proceeding registered

against him.

2. Respondent No.2 herein / complainant filed a complaint before Police

Station Supela, District Durg alleging that co-accused Ashish Mishal

from his mobile number 9009268440 had been forwarding defamatory

2

messages on WhatsApp making defamatory allegations against the

complainant which was investigated upon and the memorandum

statement of co-accused Ashish Mishal was recorded in which he has

stated that the petitioner has directed him to send messages against

the complainant and the petitioner has also paid ₹ 50,000/- to him for

that purpose. Accordingly, ₹ 50,000/- was seized and thereafter, the

petitioner and co-accused, both, were charge-sheeted for the

aforesaid offences under Sections 500 read with Section 120B of the

IPC and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the IT

Act’).

3. This petition has been preferred mainly on the ground that taking the

contents of the FIR as it is, no offence under Section 67 of the IT Act

is made out against the petitioner and alternatively, certificate under

Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, 1872 was mandatory to be filed

with the charge-sheet which was not filed along with the charge-sheet

and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun

Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others¹,

certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a

mandatory requirement and therefore in the present case, once

charge under Section 67 of the IT Act is quashed, cognizance of

offence under Section 500 of the IPC, which is non-cognizable

offence, cannot be taken on the police report in view of the provisions

contained in Section 155(2) of the CrPC and also for the reason that

complaint has not been filed by the person aggrieved before the

Magistrate within the meaning of Section 199 of the CrPC.

4. Return has been filed by the respondents opposing the petition stating

that only charges for the aforesaid offences have been framed against

1

(2020) 7 SCC 1

3

the petitioner, sufficient material is available on record and all the

charges levelled against the petitioner will be established during the

course of trial, as such, this is not the case where charges levelled

against the petitioner can be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under

Section 482 of the CrPC, therefore, the petition be dismissed.

5. Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would

submit that taking the contents of the FIR as it is, no offence und