Allahabad High Court
Manish Sonkar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 May, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70972 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12038 of 2025 Applicant :- Manish Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kashi Naresh Mishra,Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. This application under section 528 BNSS has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned charge-sheet no.192 of 2022 dated 17.12.2022, cognizance order dated 02.09.2023 and the entire proceedings of Case No.560 of 2023 (State vs. Manish Sonkar) arising out of Case Crime No.161 of 2022, under sections 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 67B of I.T. Act, P.S. Shivkuti, District- Prayagraj, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Prayagraj as well as to stay the further proceedings of aforementioned case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that so far as regarding the entire sections, wherein the applicant has been implicated in pursuance to charge-sheet preferred on dated 17.12.2022, whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court concerned is in the most mechanical manner and as such the entire proceedings has been challenged through the instant application, which is liable to be set-aside.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the applicant and supported the order dated 02.09.2023, through which cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court concerned against the applicant.
5. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, if the submission of applicant has been scrutinized in terms of sections fastened, arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicant seems to be justified since attraction of section 67B of I.T. Act, which is reproduced herein below:-
"67B. Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form. -
Whoever-(a)publishes or transmites or causes to be published or transmitted material in any electronic form which depicts children engaged in sexually esplicit act or conduct; or
(b)creates text or digital images, collects, seeks, browses, downloads, advertises, promotes, exchanges or distributes material in any electronic form depicting children in obscene or indecent or sexually explicit manner; or
(c)cultivates, entices or induces children to online relationship with one or more children for and on sexually explicit act or in a manner that may offend a reasonable adult on the computer resource; or
(d)facilitates abusing children online, or
(e)records in any electronic form own abuse or that of others pertaining to sexually explicit act with children, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either discription for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees:
Provided that provisions of section 67, section 67A and this section does not extend to any book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting representation or figure in electronic form-
(i)the publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on the ground that such book, pamphlet, paper, writing drawing, painting representation or figure is in the interest of science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern; or
(ii)which is kept or used for bona fide heritage or religious purposes."
6. It crystal clearly defines that any offence carried out by way of using electronic mode or device specifically related to children, i.e., below the age of 18 years, whereas the age of victim mentioned in the documents at the time of recording statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. reflects 20 years.
7. So far as regarding section 354 I.P.C. is concerned, the essential argument as raised by learned counsel for applicant is of assault or criminal assault which may leads to outrage the modesty of a woman and there is hardly any case of assault or criminal assault, but at the same time the conversation which is available through facebook messaging which is incripted from one to another only and the same does not reflects for normal visual by the facebook users normally, however this Court is not very well conversant with the facebook system, but as per the submission made by learned counsel for applicant which has not been opposed by learned A.G.A. the instant matter does not covered the outraging of modesty of a woman as well as attraction of section 67B of I.T. Act.
8. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances of case, the entire proceedings initiated against the applicant in shape of Case No.560 of 2023 (State vs. Manish Sonkar) arising out of Case Crime No.161 of 2022, under sections 354, 504, 506 I.P.C. and section 67B of I.T. Act, P.S. Shivkuti, District- Prayagraj, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, Prayagraj is hereby set-aside.
9. The instant application stands allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Saif