Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained solely on an unauthenticated viral video lacking proof of demand and acceptance.

The petitioner, a Kisan Salahkar at Lakshminarayanpur Panchayat, was accused in Lalganj P.S. Case No. 47 of 2024, arising from a viral video allegedly showing him accepting a bribe from a farmer in connection with the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi Yojana. The FIR was instituted pursuant to a direction issued by the District Agriculture Officer, Vaishali, treating the viral video as the basis for the prosecution.

The petitioner contended that the video was unauthenticated, that the device from which it was recorded had not been seized or verified, and that the person allegedly paying the bribe had not been examined. The FIR also did not specify the amount of the alleged bribe, the time of the transaction, or the nature of the underlying transaction.

The Special Judge, Vigilance, North Bihar, Muzaffarpur, took cognizance on 19 September 2024 and framed charges on 20 September 2024 under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the charge-framing order and consequential proceedings.

Whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the order framing charges where the prosecution was substantially founded on an unauthenticated viral video and the challenge was made at the stage of charge?

Whether the available allegations and materials disclosed the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly demand and acceptance of a bribe?

Whether the allegations disclosed the offence of extortion under Section 384 IPC, including a demand made by putting a person in fear of injury?

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, which empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice, including quashing proceedings where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence.

It considered the admissibility requirements for electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, observing that electronic material must have a traceable and properly established source.

For an offence under Section 7/7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prima facie establish demand and acceptance of an undue advantage.

Section 384 IPC requires the ingredients of extortion, including putting a person in fear of injury and thereby dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

The Court relied on Mukhtiar Singh (Since Deceased) through his Legal Representative v. State of Punjab, (2017) 8 SCC 136, on proof of payment and conscious acceptance of bribe.

The Court relied on Sanjay Kumar Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 INSC 292, on the court’s duty at the charge stage to sift the material and not act as a mere post office.

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly category (1), where allegations taken at face value do not constitute any offence.

The Court found that the charge-sheet did not identify or list any seized electronic evidence; the relevant column concerning seized articles and documents was blank.

Since the alleged video was the foundational material, the absence of its source, seizure, verification, or authentication rendered the prosecution case substantially unsupported and prevented compliance with the applicable electronic-evidence requirements.

The Court further held that a video merely showing a monetary transaction between two persons could not, without more, establish bribery or extortion. There was no prima facie material showing a demand or acceptance of an illegal gratification for purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Likewise, the FIR and charge-sheet contained no allegation or supporting evidence that the petitioner had put anyone in fear of injury or thereby induced delivery of property, which was necessary for Section 384 IPC.

Although interference at the stage of framing charge is ordinarily limited, the Court considered this an exceptional case because the prosecution’s foundational evidence was absent and the charges had been framed immediately after cognizance, leaving no effective opportunity to challenge the cognizance order.

The case fell within category (1) of the Bhajan Lal principles, as continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of court.

Accordingly, the order dated 20 September 2024 framing charges in Lalganj P.S. Case No. 47 of 2024, Special Case No. 1 of 2024, and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

The application was allowed.