Madras HC Refuses To Quash Case Against Man Accused Of Giving SIM To Co-Accused In Obscene WhatsApp Image Case

In brief

The question

Whether the charge sheet and consequential proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed where the alleged basis for his implication was the provision of a SIM card to A-1.

The court held

The Court dismissed the petition and declined to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1966 of 2024.

It also directed

It permitted the petitioner to raise all grounds before the trial court and directed that court to complete the trial within six months of receiving a copy of the order.

The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

01Facts

The petitioner, A-2, sought to quash the charge sheet and proceedings in C.C. No. 1966 of 2024, arising from Crime No. 29 of 2022, for offences under Sections 354D, 509 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶ 1

The prosecution alleged that A-1 sent a WhatsApp profile picture depicting a morphed/obscene image of the complainant; the allegation against the petitioner was that he handed A-1 a SIM card registered in his name, and the police relied on A-1’s confession to implicate him for abetment.

¶ 2

The State submitted that the trial had commenced and some witnesses had been examined.

¶ 4

02Issues

i.Whether the charge sheet and consequential proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed where the alleged basis for his implication was the provision of a SIM card to A-1.

¶ 2–3, 6

ii.Whether the petitioner’s grounds, including challenges to the prosecution allegations, could be determined at the quashment stage or should be considered at trial.

¶ 6–10

03Law Applied

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 354D, 509 and 109 IPC and Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶ 1

It applied the principle that, when considering a quashment petition, the High Court should not assess the credibility or consistency of evidence or decide disputed factual matters; it should consider whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the alleged offences.

¶ 7–9

In support, the Court relied on Devendra Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, 2019 (4) SCC 351; CBI v. Arvind Khanna, 2019 (10) SCC 686; and M. Jayanthi v. K.R. Meenakshi, Crl.A. No. 1817 of 2019, dated 2 December 2019.

¶ 7–9

The Court also referred to its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶ 8

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 509 Section 109

Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 67

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 180 Section 528

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the final report and witness statements disclosed allegations which, in its view, were sufficient to attract the charged offences, and held that their veracity required assessment of evidence at trial.

¶ 6

It treated the petitioner’s grounds as involving disputed questions of fact and, relying on the cited authorities, declined to evaluate the evidence or determine at this stage whether the proceedings were malicious.

¶ 7–10

The Court therefore left the petitioner free to raise his grounds before the trial court.

¶ 11

05Holding

The Court dismissed the petition and declined to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1966 of 2024.

¶ 11–12

It permitted the petitioner to raise all grounds before the trial court and directed that court to complete the trial within six months of receiving a copy of the order.

¶ 11–12

The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

¶ 11–12

LawLens.Madras High Court

Original Court PDF