Delhi High Court – Orders
Kuljeet Singh Makan vs Cbi on 14 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~74
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1590/2025, CRL.M.A. 14915/2025 & CRL.M.A.
14916/2025
KULJEET SINGH MAKAN .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sumati Sharma, Advocate
versus
CBI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, SPP for CBI
with Ms. Mehak Arora, Ms. Astha
Dwivedi, Ms. Muskan Narang,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 14.05.2025
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
20231 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
19732) seeks quashing of the FIR No. RC-07(S)/2020/SC-III/ND under
Section 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20123
and Section 67-B of Information Technology Act, 20004.
2. A chargesheet has also been filed against the Petitioner by the
Respondent – Central Bureau of Investigation5 and the case has advanced to
1
“BNSS”
2
“Cr.P.C.”
3
4
“IT Act”
5
“CBI”
W.P.(CRL) 1590/2025 Page 1 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 02:05:38
the stage of trial. Charges have also been framed against the Petitioner under
Sections 419 and120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 18606, Sections 67-A and
67-B of the IT Act and Sections 14 and 15 of the POCSO Act. Despite this
progression, the Petitioner seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court
to challenge the very registration of the FIR.
3. At the outset it is considered appropriate to clarify that in line with the
directions of the Supreme Court in Just Rights for Children Alliance &
Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors.7, the term “Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse
Material8” is to be used to refer to pictures and videos of children in sexually
explicit and exploitative scenarios. The broad factual background of the case
is as follows:
3.1. On 16th September, 2020, the subject FIR was registered by the CBI
against one Mr. Neeraj Kumar Yadav, under Section 67-B of IT Act and
Sections 14 & 15 of POCSO Act. The FIR contains allegations against him
pertaining to his involvement in selling/sharing of CSEAM over the internet
through social media. It is alleged that he had also been indulging in the use
of children for pornographic purposes; publishing or transmitting of material
depicting children in sexually explicit acts; creating text or digital images of
such kind, collecting, advertising, promoting, exchanging and distributing
material in electronic form depicting children in obscene or indecent or
sexually explicit manner, etc. Accordingly, the subject FIR was registered
and investigation was taken up.
3.2 Anticipating that the accused may attempt to destroy or conceal
digital evidence, the CBI seized his mobile phone and other electronic6
“IPC”
7
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2611
W.P.(CRL) 1590/2025 Page 2 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 02:05:38
devices from his permanent address.
3.3 During custodial interrogation, Neeraj Kumar Yadav admitted to
operating multiple Instagram accounts, through which he identified and
interacted with other users engaged in the sale of CSEAM. He disclosed
that, after observing advertisements and content highlights promoting the
sale of such material on Instagram, he familiarised himself with the methods
of purchase and distribution on the platform. Thereafter, he began uploading
similar promotional content on his own Instagram accounts, inviting
interested buyers to contact him. Payments were received via his Paytm
account, following which he would share download links hosted on cloud-
based storage platforms, thereby enabling direct access to CSEAM.
3.4 Neeraj Kumar Yadav further disclosed that in or around December
2019, the Petitioner – Mr. Kuljeet Singh Makan – had contacted him via
Instagram and offered access to a vast repository of illicit digital content,
including adult movies, adult comics, videos depicting sexual violence, and
CSEAM. Neeraj stated that the Petitioner shared with him a link containing
approximately 500-600 albums comprising such material. In return, Neeraj
made multiple payments through Paytm to the Petitioner’s account.
3.5 Pursuant to this lead, the Petitioner was summoned and examined by
the CBI. During his interrogation, the Petitioner allegedly admitted to being
engaged in the sale and purchase of objectionable content, including
CSEAM, using multiple Instagram accounts. His mobile phone was
thereafter seized and taken into custody for forensic examination.
3.6 Upon forensic scrutiny of the Petitioner’s phone and Instagram
communications, the investigating agency allegedly uncovered evidence
8
“CSEAM’
W.P.(CRL) 1590/2025 Page 3 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 02:05:38
indicating the Petitioner’s active role in selling and distributing CSEAM.
Further corroboration was reportedly obtained from Paytm transaction
records linking the Petitioner and co-accused Neeraj Kumar Yadav.
3.7 In light of the above, a case was registered against the Petitioner and
the co-accused Neeraj Kumar Yadev for the offences punishable under
Section 120-B of IPC read with Section 67-A, 67-B of the IT Act and
Section 14 and 15 of the POCSO Act. After completion of the investigation
was completed, the chargesheet was filed on 11th January, 2021 and
subsequently, charges were framed by the Trial Court.
4. Ms. Sumati Sharma, counsel for the Petitioner, urges the following
grounds for seeking quashing of the subject FIR:
4.1 There is no allegation made in the FIR against the Petitioner. His
involvement was purportedly brought to light only during the course of
investigation, based solely on the disclosure statement of co-accused Neeraj
Kumar Yadav. It is argued that such disclosure, uncorroborated by any
independent material, cannot form the basis for initiating proceedings
against the Petitioner.
4.2 The allegations levelled in the chargesheet are not only
unsubstantiated but also motivated and mala fide. The Petitioner has been
falsely implicated without any credible evidence linking him to the alleged
offence. The narrative against the Petitioner appears to have been
constructed post facto, and as such, the continuation of proceedings against
him amounts to an abuse of the process of law. The Petitioner has neither
met the co-accused in person nor communicated with him telephonically.
4.3 The data received from Google confirms only three email IDs as
being associated with the Petitioner. It is argued that the Cyber TiplineW.P.(CRL) 1590/2025 Page 4 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 02:05:38
Reports, as relied upon by the CBI, do not attribute any specific actionable
content to the Petitioner and thus fails to support the prosecution’s version.
4.4 On the applicability of POCSO Act, it is submitted that no evidence
has been found indicating that the Petitioner used or engaged any child for
pornographic purposes. There is neither any child discovered in the custody
of the Petitioner nor any complaint filed by an alleged victim or their
guardian. Accordingly, it is argued that the essential ingredients of the
offence under Section 14 of the POCSO Act are not made out.
4.5 It is further urged that, in the absence of any reliable mechanism or
conclusive determination of the age of persons depicted in the allegedly
objectionable digital material recovered from the Petitioner, the invocation
of Section 15 of the POCSO Act is wholly untenable. Even assuming,
without admitting, that the Petitioner viewed such content, such conduct,
absent any proof of involvement in its creation or distribution, does not
attract penal liability under Sections 14 or 15 of the POCSO Act.
4.6 There is no documentary evidence adduced by the investigating
authorities to establish that there were payments/trade of CSEAM between
Petitioner and co-accused or any other person. Therefore, the entire case of
the prosecution is unsustainable and ill motivated.
5. The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions. The
prosecution’s case against the Petitioner does not rest solely on the
disclosure statement made by him during custodial interrogation, which the
Petitioner now disputes, but is fortified by substantial electronic and
documentary evidence gathered during the course of investigation. As
recorded in the chargesheet dated 11th January, 2021, multiple digital
identifiers including email IDs, Instagram accounts, cloud storage links, and
W.P.(CRL) 1590/2025 Page 5 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 02:05:38
associated mobile numbers were traced to the Petitioner. These accounts
bore usernames overtly suggestive of their illicit purpose, such as
“picseller2021” and “promotion.of.girlsss” and were found to have been
actively used for trafficking CSEAM. To this effect, the chargesheet dated
11th January, 2021, notes as follows:
“16.12. That during investigation, it has been established that accused
Kuljeet Singh Makan is the user of email IDs (i)
[email protected]; (ii) [email protected]; (iii)
[email protected]; (iv) [email protected]; (v)
[email protected]; and (vi) [email protected] and
mobile number i.e. +919xxxxxxxxx1.
16.13. That during investigation, it has been established that accused
Kuljeet Singh Makan was having 09 Instagram Accounts which he
created by giving the details of his email IDs i.e. (i)
[email protected]; (ii) [email protected]; (iii)
[email protected]; and mobile number i.e. +919xxxxxxxxx1.
The detail of those 09 accounts is attached as Annexure-P/2. It is
pertinent to mention here that the names of some of the accounts itself
reveals that these accounts were specifically created for purpose of
selling the pictures/ videos only for e.g. picseller2021 and
promotion.of.girlsss.
16.14. That during investigation, it has been established that out of the
09 Instagram Accounts of accused Kuljeet Singh Makan, Cyber Tipline
Reports were found to be generated in respect of 02 accounts.
16.15. That during investigation, evidence in the form of Cyber Tipline
Reports, established that both accused Neeraj Kumar Yadav and Kuljeet
Singh were involved in advertising and publishing the advertisements
through their Instagram Accounts pertaining to child pornography.
xx……………..xx………………xx
16.18. That during investigation, it has been established that accused
Kuljeet Singh Makan is having 02 accounts at www.mega.nz which were
created by him with email IDs i.e. [email protected] and
[email protected], where he used to store all objectionable
/ obscene material including the child pornography material.
16.19. That during investigation, it has been established that accused
Kuljeet Singh Makan, in his above mentioned accounts at www.mega.nz,W.P.(CRL) 1590/2025 Page 6 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 02:05:38
has stored objectionable material including the child sexual abusive
material. There is sufficient evidence, both oral and documentary,
establishing that the videos / photos found in the possession of accused
Kuljeet Singh Makan contains adult pornography as well child
pornography material.
16.20. That during investigation, the scrutiny of the data of the mobile
phone of accused Neeraj Kumar Yadav established the availability of
incriminating material i.e. material pertaining to child sexual abuse /
child pornography material. It is evident through the advertisements
available in the mobile phone of accused Neeraj Kumar Yadav that he was
indulging in sale of objectionable material including the child
pornography material.
16.21. That during investigation, the scrutiny of the data established
availability of pornography material in the handset of accused Kuljeet
Singh Makan. It has also been established through the Instagram chats
available in the mobile phone of accused Kuljeet Singh Makan that he
was indulging in sale/purchase of objectionable material.
xx……………..xx………………xx
16.23. That investigation has established that mobile number
9xxxxxxxx1 is being used by accused Kuljeet Singh Makan s/o Late
Daljit Singh Makan r/o xxxxxxxxxxxxx New Delhi. Evidence in the
form replies received from Google, Facebook, Pay-Tm, NCRB and
Mega.nz establishes that in every account created by accused Kuljeet
Singh Makan, he has given mobile 9xxxxxxxx1 while
creating/registering the accounts”
[Emphasis supplied]
6. The evidentiary trail includes not only metadata and user credentials
but also communication logs, Cyber Tipline Reports, and storage data from
the cloud platform www.mega.nz, which confirm that the Petitioner
maintained multiple repositories of objectionable content. The material
seized from his mobile device, including Instagram chats, further
corroborates his role in the circulation and sale of CSEAM. This is not a
case of passive possession; the digital footprint unmistakably indicates that
the Petitioner operated as a conduit in an online network dealing with the
W.P.(CRL) 1590/2025 Page 7 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 02:05:38
commercial dissemination of sexually explicit content involving minors.
7. It is also relevant that the mobile phones of both the Petitioner and co-
accused Neeraj Kumar Yadav were subjected to forensic analysis, the results
of which substantiate the presence of the incriminating material forming the
basis of the prosecution’s case. In light of such findings, the contention that
the Petitioner’s prosecution is premised only on the co-accused’s confession
is plainly incorrect and contrary to the record.
8. Turning to the statutory argument raised with respect to Section 14 of
the POCSO Act, the Court finds no merit in the contention that the offence
for “using a child for pornographic purposes” must necessarily mean direct
participation of the accused in the creation of CSEAM. Section 2(da) of the
Act defines “child pornography” expansively, to mean “any visual depiction
of sexually explicit conduct involving a child which include photograph,
video, digital or computer generated image indistinguishable from an actual
child and image created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict a
child.” Thus, it is clear that the definition itself includes not only real
depictions but also digitally altered images of a child engaged in sexually
explicit conduct.
9. Moreover, the explanation to Section 13 of the Act clarifies the
meaning of the phrase “use a child”, as follows:
“13. Use of child for pornographic purposes: Whoever, uses a child in
any form of media (including programme or advertisement telecast by
television channels or internet or any other electronic form or printed
form, whether or not such programme or advertisement is intended for
personal use or for distribution), for the purposes of sexual
gratification, which includes–
(a) representation of the sexual organs of a child;
(b) usage of a child engaged in real or simulated sexual acts (with or
without penetration);
(c) the indecent or obscene representation of a child,
W.P.(CRL) 1590/2025 Page 8 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 02:05:38
shall be guilty of the offence of using a child for pornographic
purposes.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, the expression “use a
child” shall include involving a child through any medium like print,
electronic, computer or any other technology for preparation,
production, offering, transmitting, publishing, facilitation and
distribution of the pornographic material.”
[Emphasis supplied]
10. Thus, the phrase “use of child” as mentioned in Section 13 and
Section 14 of the Act includes activities such as offering, transmitting,
publishing, and distributing pornographic material involving children,
through any medium or technology. The legislative intent is manifest–to
criminalise every link in the chain of child exploitation, including those who
knowingly circulate such content for sexual gratification or commercial
gain.
11. Similarly, the argument regarding the absence of a complaint by any
victim or guardian is also wholly misconceived. The offence under Section
14 is a substantive offence independent of any victim’s complaint and is
cognizable once the investigating agency comes into possession of material
indicating circulation of CSEAM. Section 14 of the Act, which prescribes
the punishment for using a child for pornographic purposes, reads as
follows:
“14. Punishment for using child for pornographic purposes.– (1)
Whoever uses a child or children for pornographic purposes shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five
years and shall also be liable to fine and in the event of second or
subsequent conviction with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than seven years and also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever using a child or children for pornographic purposes under
sub-section (1), commits an offence referred to in section 3 or section 5
or section 7 or section 9 by directly participating in such pornographic
acts, shall be punished for the said offences also under section 4, section
6, section 8 and section 10, respectively, in addition to the punishmentW.P.(CRL) 1590/2025 Page 9 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 02:05:38
provided in sub-section (1).”
[Emphasis supplied]
12. It is clear from the words used by the legislature, that under sub-
section (1) of Section 14, the emphasis is on the expression, “whoever uses a
child or children for pornographic purposes”, whereas the offence
envisaged in terms of sub-section (2) is in relation to scenarios where a
person directly participates in the sexual acts with a child and also commits
offences under Section 3, 5, 7 or 9 of the POCSO Act. As such, for the
offence under Section 14 to be attracted, it is immaterial whether a victim or
their guardian has come forward or not.
13. As to the argument that the prosecution has failed to determine the
precise age of the children depicted in the material, it must be noted that
where the content itself, whether images or videos, visibly portrays
individuals who appear to be children, the statutory presumption under
Section 29 of the POCSO Act operates against the accused. This
presumption, coupled with digital markers and metadata, provides the
investigative agency with a legitimate foundation to proceed against the
accused. The legislature has consciously adopted a broad and inclusive
definition of CSEAM to forestall precisely the kind of evidentiary gaps that
traffickers might exploit.
14. In light of the above, at this stage, the Court finds no basis to quash
the ongoing criminal proceedings against the Applicant. Rather, there is
material on record which justifies the proceedings against the Petitioner,
particularly when he has been found to not only possess large amounts of
CSEAM, but the evidence uncovered during investigation also reveals that
he was actively involved in distribution/supply/sale of CSEAM over the
W.P.(CRL) 1590/2025 Page 10 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 02:05:38
internet.
15. In light of the above, in the opinion of the Court, no ground is made
out to grant the relief sought in the present petition.
16. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed along with pending
applications.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
MAY 14, 2025/ab
W.P.(CRL) 1590/2025 Page 11 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 02:05:38