1. You were in possession of her nude pics, which is sufficient to prosecute you under the provisions of IT Act. The trial will begin after the chargesheet is filed, which may take around 2 years to conclude. The only way you can wriggle out of this is by contesting the case on merits. If found guilty, you may be sentenced to imprisonment for up to 3 years.

2. You are unlikely to be issued the passport due to the pendency of the case.

1) disposal of case would depend upon pendency of cases in court

2) it should take around 5 years for case to be disposed of

3) applicant against whom a criminal case is pending, is required to obtain necessary permission from the Criminal Court wherein his case is pending and then make an application to the passport authority.

Hi, if the FIR is registered and the still police has not file the Charge Sheet, before filling the same you have to approach the High Court for quashing the FIR, you can take a chance if the FIR is quashed then the case will go automatically.

If the police have made arrest under the said sections, wait for them to file the charge sheet and you can file a quash petition after that.

Actually the section 66A of IT Act amended in 2008 says:

What Section 66A says:

"Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or

(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,

(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine."

Section 66A provides punishment for sending offensive messages through communication services.

These messages may be any information created, transmitted or received on a computer system, resource or device including attachments in the form of...

• Text

• Images

• Audio

• Video

• Any other electronic record which may be transmitted with the message

The law targets messages that...

• Are grossly offensive or menacing

• Proffer false information intending to cause annoyance, inconvenience, intimidation, insult, obstruction, etc.,

• Are intended at deceiving the addressee about the origin of the message

The law was amended in 2008 and received Presidential assent on February 5, 2009.

However Supreme court in a verdict strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A stating that

It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous’

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a “draconian” provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be “allegedly objectionable” on the Internet.

“It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,” said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was “open-ended and undefined”, it said.

The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. “The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which ‘incites’ anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of ‘discussion’ or ‘advocacy’ of a ‘particular point of view’. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,” the court held.

Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre’s plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.

“If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,” the court said.

Therefore you can be free about the section 66A of IT act that has been slapped on you.

Now the remaining section is 509 IPC, you can challenge the same in trial proceedings.

For passport you may have to wait for the disposal of the criminal cases agaisnt you.