partially modified the order of the ACMM and directed the registration of FIR only under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act by relying on the decision of this Court in Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government (NCT of Delhi)8. 3.4 The appellants then filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court for quashing the abovementioned orders, which came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 06.03.2023, impugned herein. Against the dismissal and the consequent direction to register FIR under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act, the present appeals are filed by all the accused/appellants. 3.5 Pursuant to the directions of the High Court, an FIR was registered under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act against the appellants on 16.04.2023. 4. Reasoning of the High Court: The High Court, while dismissing the petition for quashing, held that the object of Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act is to punish the publication and transmission of obscene and sexually explicit material in the cyber space. It relied on the ‘community standard test’ to determine whether the material is obscene, as laid down by this Court in 8 (2017) 2 SCC 18, 2016 INSC 1131. 4