ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant-victim lodged Crime No.543 of 2015 dated 14.10.2015, registered at Police Station Kampoo, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and section 67 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000. 3. The allegations were that respondent No.2, who is a doctor by profession had been allegedly sending obscene messages, photographs and videos to the appellant on her mobile phone. The allegations were investigated and a prima facie case having been made out, the chargesheet was filed. 4. The High Court vide impugned order dated 16.3.2022, has quashed the FIR, chargesheet and the proceedings arising therefrom, compelling the appellantvictim to approach this Court. It is necessary to briefly notice as to how the appellant-victim came in contact with respondent No.2-accused. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.2, at the relevant time, was serving as a doctor in G.R. Medical College, Gwalior. The appellant was admitted to the hospital for treatment of a cyst. During the course of treatment, respondent No.2 provided his mobile number to her in case she needed any medical assistance. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellant knew respondent No.2 well before, as he had treated and operated on her elder brother about 11-12 years ago. The appellant was suspected to be suffering from Tuberculosis, which resulted into the development of a cyst in her stomach. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned senior counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 6. The allegations are that taking undue advantage of the relationship between a patient and the doctor, respondent No.2 started exchanging messages with the appellant and in that course, various obscene video clips/photographs were sent on her mobile phone. 7. We will refrain from reproducing the details of the messages exchanged except the observation that the appellant, in no uncertain terms, protested against the receipt of the obscene video clips, and sent a message stating that she could not imagine that the doctor who is treating her would send such obscene material to her. 8. Least to say, the reasoning assigned by the High Court in paragraph 6 of the impugned order is totally unwarranted and uncalled for. Ignoring the sensitivity of gender-related offences, the High Court has simply resorted to a casual approach, leading to passing of a cryptic order. 8. Least to say, the reasoning assigned by the High Court in paragraph 6 of the impugned order is totally unwarranted and uncalled for. Ignoring the sensitivity of gender-related offences, the High Court has simply resorted to a casual approach, leading to passing of a cryptic order. The admissibility of electronic evidence and/or its evidentiary value are the issues to be considered by the trial Court at an appropriate stage. Once the factum of sending video clips has been prima facie established through the investigation, the question as to whether such obscene material makes out an offence within the four corners of section 354-A of IPC and/or any related provision has to be left to the domain of the trial Court. The manner in which the High Court has passed the peremptory order surely does not serve the cause of justice. 9. Any further observations by us may cause prejudice to either of the parties. 10. For the reasons aforestated, the appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, is directed to proceed with the trial. He/She shall take up the case twice a month and ensure that the trial concludes within six months. The Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, is directed to ensure the presence of the witnesses on each and every date of hearing and extend full cooperation to the trial Court. 11. We direct respondent No.2 also to extend full cooperation to the trial, failing which the protection of bail shall stand withdrawn. 12. It seems that respondent No.2 is a local affluent person. If the victim has any bona fide apprehension that the accused might attempt to win over the witnesses or tamper with the evidence, liberty is granted to her to seek transfer of trial to any other place of her choice. Such a request shall be forthwith entertained by the High Court. 13. A cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) is imposed on respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 is directed to pay the cost amount to the appellant by way of a demand draft as litigation expenses of this case on the next date of appearance before the Trial Magistrate. 14. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.