# Ram Pramesh Gupta @ Ram Pramesh Pno No. 212761283 v. State Of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 190 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-07-17 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 5761 of 2025 - **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-pramesh-gupta-ram-pramesh-pno-no-212761283-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53620 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote tried under Section 509 of I.P.C. and under section 67 of the I.T. Act for posting offensive and obscene content about a woman on social media? HEADNOTES Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section - 164, 482, - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section - 509, - Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008 - Section 67, 81 - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing of the charge-sheet as well as summoning order - FIR lodged by opposite party no. 2 - alleged that an unknown person having a fake Facebook profile and posted some obscene photographs of informant's daughter on his Facebook account with objectionable comments - investigation - Charge-sheet u/s 509 of the IPC & u/s 67 of IT Act - trial court taken cognizance and summoned the applicant - applicant taken plea that when he had charged for commission of offence u/s 67 of IT Act, he cannot simultaneously be tried for the offence u/s 509 of IPC - Evaluation of Evidence - court finds that section 67 of the IT Act and Section 509 IPC cover distinct legal domains: electronic obscenity and insult to modesty, respectively, - sufficient prima facie evidence supports the charges and trial court acted within its jurisdiction in taking cognizance and summoning the applicant - held that, both provisions can be invoked concurrently if the facts support both offences - accordingly, application stands dismissed. (Para - 13, 14, 15, 17) Application Dismissed. (E-11) CASE LAW CITED 7 All. Ram Pramesh Gupta @ Ram Pramesh Pno No. 212761283 Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 191 Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 2 SCC 18. LIST OF ACTS Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. LIST OF KEYWORDS Fake Facebook profile - Obscene content - Modesty of woman - Electronic transmission - Cognizance - Charge-sheet - Prima facie evidence. CASE ARISING FROM Charge-sheet dated 02.10.2024 and Summoning order dated 10.02.2025 - Criminal Case No. 4321 of 2025 - Case Crime No. 0349 of 2023 - FIR dated 21.12.2023 lodged at Police Station Chhapiya, District Gonda. APPEARANCE OF PARTIES Counsel for Appellant: - Sri Sanjay Kumar Rao. Counsel for Respondent: - Sri Avishesh Kumar Singh, AGA. ## Text 190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES rather it has been recorded that PW-1 and PW-2 have stated about involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence and even in the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2, no such fact has come to light, as may raise a suspicion against the applicant's involvement in commission of the offence. The trial Court has recorded satisfaction that there is ample evidence for recording more than a prima facie satisfaction regarding involvement of the applicant in commission of the offence. Nothing more is required to be done by the trial Court while deciding an application for summoning an accused person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no such defect in the impugned order, as had given a rise of interference in the case of Ashok Kumar Singh (Supra) and the aforesaid judgment annexed with the supplementary affidavit would not apply to the facts of the present case, as it is a well settled principle of the law of precedents that the ratio laid down in a precedent should be understood and applied keeping in view the factual background of the case and a little difference in facts the case would make the precedent inapplicable. 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffer from any error or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 27. The application lacks merit and is dismissed. --------- (2025) 7 ILRA 190 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 17.07.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. Application U/S 482 No. 5761 of 2025 Ram Pramesh Gupta @ Ram Pramesh Pno No. 212761283 ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sanjay Kumar Rao Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether the applicant can be simultaneously tried under Section 509 of I.P.C. and under section 67 of the I.T. Act for posting offensive and obscene content about a woman on social media? HEADNOTES Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section - 164, 482, - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section - 509, - Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008 - Section 67, 81 - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - for quashing of the charge-sheet as well as summoning order - FIR lodged by opposite party no. 2 - alleged that an unknown person having a fake Facebook profile and posted some obscene photographs of informant's daughter on his Facebook account with objectionable comments - investigation - Charge-sheet u/s 509 of the IPC & u/s 67 of IT Act - trial court taken cognizance and summoned the applicant - applicant taken plea that when he had charged for commission of offence u/s 67 of IT Act, he cannot simultaneously be tried for the offence u/s 509 of IPC - Evaluation of Evidence - court finds that section 67 of the IT Act and Section 509 IPC cover distinct legal domains: electronic obscenity and insult to modesty, respectively, - sufficient prima facie evidence supports the charges and trial court acted within its jurisdiction in taking cognizance and summoning the applicant - held that, both provisions can be invoked concurrently if the facts support both offences - accordingly, application stands dismissed. (Para - 13, 14, 15, 17) Application Dismissed. (E-11) CASE LAW CITED 7 All. Ram Pramesh Gupta @ Ram Pramesh Pno No. 212761283 Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 191 Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 2 SCC 18. LIST OF ACTS Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. LIST OF KEYWORDS Fake Facebook profile - Obscene content - Modesty of woman - Electronic transmission - Cognizance - Charge-sheet - Prima facie evidence. CASE ARISING FROM Charge-sheet dated 02.10.2024 and Summoning order dated 10.02.2025 - Criminal Case No. 4321 of 2025 - Case Crime No. 0349 of 2023 - FIR dated 21.12.2023 lodged at Police Station Chhapiya, District Gonda. APPEARANCE OF PARTIES Counsel for Appellant: - Sri Sanjay Kumar Rao. Counsel for Respondent: - Sri Avishesh Kumar Singh, AGA. (Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Avishesh Kumar Singh, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, the applicant has prayed for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet dated 02.10.2024 arising out of Case Crime No.0349 of 2023, under Section 509 I.P.C. and Section 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station Chhapiya, District Gonda, cognizance and summoning order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Room No.2, Gonda in Criminal Case No.4321 of 2025, along with entire proceedings of the aforesaid case. 3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 21.12.2023 stating that some unknown person had created a facebook account in the name of Dev Gautam. He has prepared some obscene photographs of the informant's daughter and is posting the same along with objectionable comments causing a serious mental agony to the informant and his daughter. 4. Assailing the validity of the chargesheet and the summoning order, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Information Technology Act is a special Act. He has drawn attention of the court to the statutory provisions contained in Sections 67 & 81 of the Act. Relying upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharat Babu Digumarti Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi): (2017) 2 SCC 18, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that when the applicant is charged for commission of offence under Section 67 of Information Technology Act, he cannot simultaneously be tried for the offence under Section 509 I.P.C., which is a general provision. 5. At the stage of examining the validity of charge sheet and the summoning order the court has merely to examine whether the allegations leveled in the F.I.R. and the material collected during investigation make out a case for trial of the accused person for the alleged offences. 6. A copy of the material posted by the applicant on social media site has been annexed with the application, which shows that the content of message posted by the applicant is intended to insult the modesty of daughter of the opposite party no.2. This 192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES material exhibits an obscene photograph of the daughter of opposite party no.2 and it can be seen by any person connected to the social media, including the daughter of the applicant. 7. In the statements of the informant and the victim they have stated that a fake id has been created on facebook in the name of Dev Gautam and edited obscene photograph and objectionable story have been posted thereon causing a serious mental agony to the informant and his daughter. The victim further stated that she does not know any person named Dev Gautam and she had not shared her photo with any person. 8. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated that a wedding proposal of her elder sister was settled with the applicant but it could not get materialized. Due to the aforesaid reason the applicant has created the fake facebook profile in the name of Dev Gautam and has posted obscene photographs and objectionable comments thereon and he has tagged several persons residing in the informant's village in that post. 9. After investigation the Investigating Officer has submitted a charge sheet dated 02.10.2024 for commission of offences under Section 509 I.P.C. and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. The trial has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences by means of an order dated 10.02.2025 and has summoned the applicant to face trial. 10. Section 67 of I.T. Act provides as follows: - "67. Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. - Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees." 11. Section 509 I.P.C. reads as under: - "509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.- Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine." 12. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that Section 67 I.T. Act contains provisions regarding publication or transmission of any material in the electronic form, which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in 7 All. Ram Pramesh Gupta @ Ram Pramesh Pno No. 212761283 Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 193 it. Section 509 IPC contains provisions regarding utterance of any word, making any sound or gesture, or exhibition of any object, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, or intruding upon the privacy of such woman. The scope of the aforesaid two provisions is different and distinct and both the offences can be attracted on the basis of one set of facts. 13. A bare perusal of the allegations leveled in the F.I.R., which have been referred to above make out commission of the offences under Section 67 of I.T. Act as also under Section 509 I.P.C. There is sufficient material in the form of the photographs and the message posted on facebook and the statements of the complainant and the victim, which prima facie establish commission of offences under Section 509 I.P.C. as also under Section 67 of I.T. Act. 14. In Sharat Babu Digumarti (Supra), a charge-sheet was filed and the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 292 and 294 IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act. On a petition filed by a co-accused Avnish Bajaj, the High Court held that a prima facie case was made out under Section 292 IPC, but Avnish Bajaj was not liable to be proceeded under Section 292 IPC and he was discharged of the offence under Sections 292 and 294 IPC. However, he was prima facie found to have committed offence under Section 67 read with Section 85 of the IT Act and the trial court was directed to pass order of charge. Sharat Babu Digumarti challenged the order for framing of charge through a revision filed in the High Court but the High Court declined to interfere on the ground that there was sufficient material to proceed against him for the offence under Section 292 IPC. The issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that whether the appellant who has been discharged under Section 67 of the IT Act could be proceeded under Section 292 IPC, which deals with sale etc. of obscene books. In the aforesaid background, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Sharat Babu Digumarti that: - "...if the alleged offence pertains to offence of electronic record. It has to be borne in mind that IT Act is a special enactment. It has special provisions. Section 292 IPC makes offence sale of obscene books, etc. but once the offence has a nexus or connection with the electronic record the protection and effect of Section 79 cannot be ignored and negated. We are inclined to think so as it is a special provision for a specific purpose and the Act has to be given effect to so as to make the protection effective and true to the legislative intent. This is the mandate behind Section 81 of the IT Act. The additional protection granted by the IT Act would apply." 15. The offence punishable under Section 509 IPC was not involved in Sharat Babu Digumarti (Supra) and, therefore, this judgment is not an authority on the point whether a person can be tried for the offence under Section 509 IPC alongwith Section 67 of the I.T. Act. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the view that the ratio of law laid down in Sharat Babu Digumarti (Supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case. 17. As this Court has arrived at the view that the allegations leveled in the FIR and the material collected during 194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES investigation in the form of the pictures and the message posted on facebook and the statements of the informant and the victim recorded by the investigating officer prima facie make out commission of offences punishable under Section 509 IPC and Section 67 of the I.T. Act, there is no error or illegality in the charge-sheet submitted against the applicant for the aforesaid two offences. The trial court has not committed any error of illegality in taking cognizance of the offences and in summoning the applicant to face trial. 18. The application lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. --------- (2025) 7 ILRA 194 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 03.07.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI , J. Application U/S 482 No. 9555 of 2022 Pranay Krishna ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Rajendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether a separate application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable for recalling an exparte order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in a criminal revision, or whether such recall must be sought through a miscellaneous application in the same proceeding. HEADNOTES Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section - 362, 482 - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - seeking recall of an ex-parte order - in Criminal Revision, on the ground that the applicant was not personally served notice and thus could not appear - Preliminary objection regarding maintainability of a separate application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for recalling an ex-parte order passed in a criminal revision - and the applicant ought to have filed a miscellaneous application for recalling the order in Criminal Revision - Court observed that although it possesses inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure justice, such powers must be exercised within the same proceeding and not through a separate application - citing precedents like Tribhuvan v. State of U.P. and Badloo v. State, the Court held that, for seeking recall of an exparte order passed in a Criminal Revision, the petitioner should approach the same court by fling an application for recall of the order and a separate application under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained for this purpose - consequently, the application is dismissed, with liberty to the applicant, to file a suitable application in the criminal revision. (Para - 7, 8, 9) Application Dismissed. (E-11) CASE LAW CITED Tribhuvan v. State of U.P., (1992) L.Cr.R. 165) - Badloo v. State (1999 SCC OnLine All 644 = (1999) L.Cr.R. 275). LIST OF ACTS Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. LIST OF KEYWORDS Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Inherent powers - Ex-parte order - Criminal Revision - Recall application - Co-ordinate Bench - Abuse of process - Ends of justice CASE ARISING FROM Order dated 24.03.2022 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this court in Criminal Revision No. 584/2016. APPEARANCE OF PARTIES Counsel for Appellant: - Sri Rajendra Prasad Mishra. Counsel for Respondent: - Sri Hans Raj Verma - AGA.