RAJENDRA AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(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 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 Rs. 50,000/- to him for that purpose. Accordingly, Rs. 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 others , 2020 7 SCC 1 , 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.