DEEPAK YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 46890 of 2025

Deepak Yadav
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                          :    Vinay Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                     :    G.A.

Court No. - 80
                    HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for applicant and learned
A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for
quashing the entire proceeding of Crl. Case No.44583 of2025 (State Vs.
Deepak Yadav) arising out of Case Crime No.166 of 2025 under Section
318(4) of B.N.S. and Section 66-D of I.T. Act and also to quash the
impugned charge sheet dated 18.7.2025 as well as impugned cognizance
order dated 6.10.2025, Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi, pending
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the applicant has
neither uploaded any such video nor has any video been recovered from
his possession. Further, no material has been found to suggest that the
applicant carried out any manipulation or editing of any video. It is
further submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated merely on
the allegation that he had recorded a video of the concerned police station,
allegedly showing mishandling of persons who had come there to lodge
their F.I.R., which were not being registered. It is further submitted that,
after investigation, the police have filed a charge-sheet against the
applicant. The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 06.10.2025, has taken
cognizance under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and
Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act. It is contended that no
offence, as alleged, is made out against the applicant. The learned
                                                       NA528 No. 46890 of 2025
                               2


Magistrate has failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of
the case and has mechanically passed the impugned cognizance
order. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality and
infirmity and is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions advanced on
behalf of the applicant. It is contended that an F.I.R. has been registered
as Case Crime No. 0166 of 2025 under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act,
alleging that the applicant had uploaded a video on facebook. It is further
submitted that, after due investigation, the police have filed a charge-
sheet, and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance vide order dated
06.10.2025. It is thus contended that, on the basis of the F.I.R., charge-
sheet, and the material available on record, the learned Magistrate has
rightly taken cognizance and has not committed any illegality in passing
the impugned order. Therefore, the present application is liable to be
dismissed.

5. From the facts of the present case, it transpires that an F.I.R. has been
registered as Case Crime No. 0166 of 2025 under Section 318(4) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66-D of the Information
Technology Act, with an allegation that the applicant had uploaded a
video on facebook on 09.05.2019. The police after investigation
submitted charge sheet and the the learned Magistrate, vide order dated
06.10.2025, has taken cognizance under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act
against the applicant. The learned Magistrate has given a detailed
reasoning in passing of the impugned order.

6. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of
the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against
the applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed
question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in
exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only
prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme
Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866,
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar
                                                                                        NA528 No. 46890 of 2025
                                                                   3


                                    Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu
                                    Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another
                                    (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused
                                    cannot be considered at this stage.

                                    7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any
                                    ground to quash the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for
                                    quashing the same is hereby refused.

                                    8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.



                                                                                       (Chawan Prakash,J.)
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    Md Faisal




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad