Chattisgarh High Court
Ramakant Vaishnav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:20044-DB
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BABLU
BABLU RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA BHANARKAR
BHANARKAR Date:
2026.04.30
18:21:28
+0530
CRMP No. 1220 of 2026
Ramakant Vaishnav S/o Rajkumar Vaishnav Aged About 38 Years
Presently On The Post Of Army Sepoy Kunnur State Of Kerala, (Union
Of India), R/o Aamapendri, P.S. Patan, District Durg (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Salhewara District
Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.)
2 - Tahmid Khan S/o Late Shehban Khan Aged About 35 Years Active
Member Indian National Congress Legislative Area Khairagarh M.L.A.
Representative R/o Salhewara, Ward No. 12, P.S. Salhewara, District
Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr.Shivendu Pandya, Advocate
For Respondent : Ms.Vaishali Mahilang, Deputy Government
No.1-State Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
30.04.2026
1. Heard Mr.Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as Ms.Vaishali Mahilang, learned Deputy Government
2
Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
following relief(s):
“i. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
allow the instant petition under Section 528 of
B.N.S.S. 2023 filed by the petitioner.
ii. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash the F.I.R. in crime no. 12/2023 registered as
Police Station Salhewara District Khairagarh-
Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) for offence under
Section 294, 504, 505(1)(b), 67 of Information
Technology Act 2005, in the interest of justice.
iii. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash /set aside the charge sheet filed before
Judicial Magistrate First Class dated 30.09.2024 for
the offence committed under Section 294, 504,
505(1)(b), 67 of Information Technology Act 2005, in
the interest of justice.
iv. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash /set aside the cognizance taken by Judicial
Magistrate First Class Chhuikhadan, District
Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) in Criminal
Case No. 1196/2024 dated 13.11.2024 for the
offence committed under section 294, 504, 505(1)
(b), 67 of Information Technology Act 2005, in the
interest of justice.
v. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
quash /set aside the charges frame for the offence
committed under Section 294, 504, 505(1)(b), 67 of
Information Technology Act 2005 by the Judicial
3
Magistrate First Class Chhuikhadan, District
Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) in Criminal
Case No. 1196/2024 dated 13.11.2024, in the
interest of justice.”
3. As per the prosecution story, on 28.04.2023, allegations were
made against the present petitioner that he made certain
statements against the Hon’ble former Chief Minister, Shri
Bhupesh Baghel. It is further alleged that the petitioner used
abusive language against the Hon’ble former Chief Minister and
his family members. Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly uploaded
a WhatsApp status containing abusive remarks against the
Hon’ble former Chief Minister from his mobile phone. The said
status was visible to and viewed by several persons who were in
contact with the petitioner. Due to the circulation of the said
WhatsApp status containing allegations against the Hon’ble
former Chief Minister, Respondent No. 2, upon viewing the status
on 28.04.2023 at about 12:00 PM while present in his office, also
came across the content relating to the Dantewada Naxalite
incident. Thereafter, he submitted a written complaint at Police
Station Salhewara on 28.04.2023. Based on the said complaint,
the police registered an FIR bearing Crime No. 12/2023 dated
29.04.2023 against the petitioner for offences under Sections 294,
504, 505(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000. Hence, the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged
4
statement attributed to the petitioner was made under severe
mental stress. It is submitted that the said statement was
recorded by another individual, and the video was subsequently
forwarded to the petitioner. Due to a technical error, the said video
was inadvertently uploaded as a WhatsApp status without any
deliberate intention on the part of the petitioner. Respondent No.
2, driven by political motives and influence, has lodged a false FIR
against the petitioner solely to gain political mileage, and the
petitioner has been wrongly implicated in the present case. The
investigation has been completed and a charge sheet has been
filed. However, the only material relied upon is the Call Detail
Record (CDR) along with a certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act. No primary electronic evidence, such as a
pendrive, memory card, or the original device through which the
alleged message was transmitted, has been seized or produced.
The prosecution case rests merely on a screenshot contained on
a single page, which lacks evidentiary value. No incriminating
material has been collected against the petitioner. That the
petitioner has already been enlarged on bail by the learned court
below and has not misused the liberty granted to him at any point
of time.
5. He also submits that if the present proceedings are not quashed,
it would cause serious prejudice and irreparable harm to the
petitioner’s career and reputation. Being posted in the State of
Kerala, the petitioner is required to seek leave to attend court
5
proceedings, which is often not feasible due to the nature of his
duties. The petitioner’s superior officers may not grant leave, and
his inability to appear before the trial court may result in adverse
orders being passed against him. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that this Court may
be pleased to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings
against the petitioner in the interest of justice.
6. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate
appearing for respondent No.1-State opposes the submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the
allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. The
petitioner has used abusive and derogatory language against a
public figure, namely the former Chief Minister, and has circulated
the same through a widely accessible social media platform
(WhatsApp), thereby disturbing public order and tranquility. She
further submits that the FIR prima facie discloses the cognizable
offence. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents appended with petition.
8. This Court is guided by the settled principles governing inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS).
Interference at the stage of FIR or after filing of charge-sheet is
warranted only where: (a) the allegations do not disclose any
offence even if taken at face value; or (b) the proceedings are
6
manifestly attended with mala fides or are maliciously instituted.
9. From perusal of the contents of the FIR, it transpires that the
complainant appeared at the police station and submitted a
written application stating that one Ramakant Vaishnav, holder of
mobile number 6005018681, had uploaded a WhatsApp status
from his mobile phone containing obscene and abusive language
directed against the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, Shri
Bhupesh Baghel, as well as his family members. It was alleged
that by posting such content, the accused attempted to disturb
public peace and tranquility. The complainant further stated that
upon viewing the said WhatsApp status, he and his associates felt
deeply hurt and aggrieved. The content of the status was found to
be offensive and capable of inciting public anger. Upon perusal of
the application, it was found that the accused, Ramakant
Vaishnav, through electronic means, had used abusive language
against the Hon’ble Chief Minister and thereby attempted to
provoke public sentiment and incite disturbance. In his detailed
complaint, the complainant submitted that on 28.04.2023,
between approximately 12:00 PM and 1:00 PM, while he was
sitting at his shop located at Salhewara Bus Stand and browsing
WhatsApp on his mobile phone, he saw the status uploaded by
Ramakant Vaishnav. In the said status, the accused had posted
an image related to the Naxalite attack that occurred in
Dantewada and had written abusive and derogatory remarks
against the Hon’ble Chief Minister, including offensive statements
7
targeting him and his family members. The complainant further
stated that viewing such content caused him and other party
workers considerable distress and outrage, and that the said act
had the potential to incite public anger and disturb communal
harmony.
10. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is
made out for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the CrPC (Section 528 BNSS).
11. The contention of the petitioner that the alleged WhatsApp status
was uploaded inadvertently due to a technical error, or that the
statement was made under mental stress and recorded by
another person, involves disputed questions of fact. Such issues
require appreciation of evidence and cannot be adjudicated in
proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS), which
are limited in scope.
12. From the contents of the FIR and the material collected during
investigation, it prima facie appears that the petitioner had
uploaded content containing abusive and derogatory remarks
against a public figure and his family members on a social media
platform accessible to the public at large. The allegations, taken at
face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences and
cannot be said to be inherently improbable or absurd.
8
13. The submission regarding alleged deficiencies in the investigation,
including non-seizure of electronic devices or reliance on
screenshots and Call Detail Records, also pertains to the
evidentiary value of the material collected. Such aspects are
matters for trial and cannot be a ground for quashing the
proceedings at this stage.
14. In Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others, (2020) 10 SCC 180, the Supreme Court has
observed that the power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While
examining an F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the
Court cannot inquire about the reliability, genuineness, or
otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint. The
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of
wide power requires the Court to be cautious. The Apex Court has
emphasized that though the Court has the power to quash the
F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the
allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence and is not required to consider the case on merit.
15. In State Represented by the Inspector of Police v. M.Maridoss
& Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.67/2023), decided on 9.1.2023, the
Supreme Court has observed that it is a settled position of law
that while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, the High
Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. What is required to
9
be considered at that stage is the nature of accusations and
allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in
the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of the cognizable
offence or not.
16. In view of the settled legal principles governing the exercise of
inherent powers, this Court finds that the present case does not
fall within the exceptional categories warranting interference. The
allegations in the FIR, if taken at face value, clearly disclose the
commission of offences, and the matter requires adjudication on
merits by the learned trial Court.
17. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby
dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-/-Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu
