Disputed questions of fact involving transmission of sexually explicit material necessitate a full trial.

The Petitioner (Accused No. 2) is the wife of Accused No. 1, the proprietor of Arya Gold Company.

The Respondent No. 2 (Complainant) alleged that while employed as a Senior Manager, Accused No. 1 sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions.

It is further alleged that Accused No. 1 recorded these acts on a mobile phone and used the footage to blackmail her.

The specific allegation against the Petitioner is that she subsequently circulated this sexually explicit material to the Complainant’s husband and relatives via WhatsApp.

Following an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet for offences under Sections 64(1), 68, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000.

The Petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC), arguing a lack of evidence regarding her involvement in the transmission.

The court primarily applied Section 67 and 67A of the IT Act, 2000, which penalize the publishing or transmission of obscene or sexually explicit material in electronic form.

It relied on the principle that the term "sexually explicit" must be interpreted broadly to prevent the exploitation of persons in electronic form.

inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS should be exercised sparingly and not to conduct a "mini-trial" when a charge sheet discloses triable issues (Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh; Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya)).

The Court observed that the complaint, the summary of the charge sheet (Column No. 17), and the detailed statement of the victim recorded under Section 164(5) of the CrPC specifically attribute an active role to the Petitioner in transmitting compromising material to the victim's family.

Although the Petitioner contended that forensic examination of the seized mobile phone did not confirm such transmission, the Court held that this constitutes a "seriously disputed question of fact" that can only be resolved through a full-fledged trial involving the examination and cross-examination of witnesses.

The Court reasoned that evaluating the reliability or genuineness of allegations at this stage would overstep the limits of its inherent jurisdiction as defined by the Supreme Court.

The Court held that quashing proceedings at the threshold is impermissible when the investigation has resulted in a charge sheet disclosing grave offences. Consequently, the Criminal Petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to decide the matter independently on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in this order.