The Chhattisgarh High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a woman accused of posting objectionable remarks against Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on Instagram, holding that the allegations in the charge-sheet, if taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. The Court further held that disputed questions relating to the alleged remarks, electronic evidence and the investigation cannot be examined while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.[2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 104]

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was hearing a petition seeking quashing of the FIR, and the order framing charges passed by the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution case was that the petitioner had uploaded objectionable and derogatory remarks against Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on Instagram, following which an FIR was registered and, after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the SC/ST Act.

The petitioner contended that the cognizance order had been passed mechanically, that the essential ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were not made out. The State submitted that the investigation had collected sufficient material to disclose the alleged offences and that the issues raised by the petitioner involved disputed questions of fact which could only be examined during trial.

The Court observed that the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings are well settled; the power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly. It observed that, while considering a petition for quashing, the High Court cannot examine the reliability of the allegations, appreciate the evidence or conduct a mini trial.

“… criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the threshold, that investigation into cognizable offences should ordinarily be permitted to proceed unhindered, and that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with great caution and self-restraint, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in manifest miscarriage of justice,” the Court remarked.

The Court held that the allegations in the complaint, the statements recorded during investigation and the material collected by the investigating agency, if taken at their face value, prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable offences. It observed that the petitioner's contentions regarding the context of the remarks, absence of intention, and other alleged procedural irregularities involved disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence and could not be examined under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court further held that the cognizance order could not be quashed merely because it did not reproduce the exact provisions of the SC/ST Act. It observed:

“Merely because the cognizance order does not reproduce the exact statutory provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would not, by itself, render the order illegal or vitiate the entire proceedings, particularly when no prejudice has been demonstrated to have been caused to the petitioner.”

Holding that the case did not fall within the exceptional categories warranting exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Anamika Upadhyay v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [CRMP No. 2017 of 2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 104