Delhi District Court
Nirmal Sen vs State Nct Of Delhi on 19 August, 2025
DLND010019522025 Page 1 of 15
Cr Rev. No.151/2025
NIRMAL SEN
Vs.
STATE NCT OF DELHI
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS :
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No.151/25
In the matter of :-
Nirmal Sen
S/o. Sh. Om Prakash Sen
R/o. H.No.17, Rajiv Vihar Colony,
Ward No.34, Mansarover, Jaipur,
Rajasthan - 302020 .....Revisionist
(represented by Sh. Bharat Chugh, Advocate)
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) .....Respondent
(Represented Sh. Mukul Kumar,
Ld. Addl. PP for State)
CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 438 BNSS 2023
Date of institution : 21.03.2025
Date when judgment reserved : 01.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 19.08.2025
JUDGMENT:-
1. INTRODUCTION
(i) This criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 438 read with Section 440 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 397 read with Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), by the revisionist, Mr. Nirmal Sen, challenging the impugned summoning order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM), New Delhi District, DLND010019522025 Page 2 of 15 Cr Rev. No.151/2025 NIRMAL SEN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI Patiala House Court, in the matter titled "State v. Nirmal Sen & Ors." (FIR No.142/20, PS Special Cell). The revisionist contends that the summoning order was passed mechanically without application of judicial mind, as no prima facie case is made out against him under Sections 506, 507, 509, 354D read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He further asserts that he has been made a scapegoat, while persons explicitly named in the FIR and the complainant's statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. have not been arrayed as accused. The State opposes the petition, relying on the chargesheet and evidence collected during investigation. Having heard the arguments of both sides and perused the record, this Court proceeds to adjudicate the matter.
2. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
(i) The genesis of the case lies in a social media controversy that unfolded in May 2020. On 03.05.2020, the complainant posted details and screenshots on her Instagram handle exposing an alleged chat group named "Bois Locker Room," wherein several boys were purportedly engaged in objectionable discussions involving sexual objectification, slut-shaming, and casual references to rape. This led to the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) taking suo moto cognizance on 04.05.2020, resulting in the registration of FIR No.142/2020 under Sections 465, 469, 471, 509 IPC read with Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, at PS Special Cell, Cyber Crime Unit (CYPAD), Delhi.
(ii) Concurrently, another incident involving the suicide of a 17-year-old boy in Gurugram, Haryana, allegedly due to false implications in a sexual assault case, garnered public attention. Media reports and public DLND010019522025 Page 3 of 15 Cr Rev. No.151/2025 NIRMAL SEN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI perception erroneously linked the two incidents, leading to the belief that the boy's suicide was related to the said exposure of chat group by complainant. This misperception fueled backlash against the complainant.
(iii) On 31.05.2020, the complainant filed a complaint alleging cyberbullying, threats, stalking, and insults to her modesty following her exposure of the group. This resulted in the registration of the instant FIR No. 142/2020 under Sections 506, 507, 509, 354D read with Section 34 IPC at PS Special Cell, Cyber Crime Unit/IFSO, New Delhi. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the complainant named specific individuals--Mahira Bhalla, Harsha Gupta, Mehar Dua, and Harpriya Kaur--as perpetrators of harassment, including threats, sharing of personal details, and creation of hate pages. However, the revisionist was not named in the FIR or this statement.
(iv) The investigation revealed 29 Instagram accounts and one WhatsApp group involved in posting objectionable content against the complainant. The revisionist was implicated based on a single alleged comment from his Instagram account "@thenirmalsen": "You should havFe commit suicide instead of that innocent guy." This comment was linked to the public misconception associating the complainant with the Gurugram suicide.
(v) The chargesheet was filed, attributing the aforementioned comment to the revisionist and charging him under the aforesaid sections. The revisionist was arrested on 20.11.2021 but released on police bail, as the offences were bailable.
DLND010019522025 Page 4 of 15 Cr Rev. No.151/2025NIRMAL SEN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI
3. IMPUGNED ORDER
(i) The impugned order dated 25.05.2023, passed by the Ld. CMM, reads as follows:
"Fresh chargesheet is filed. It be checked and registered. Present: Ld. APP for the State.
IO SI Vikrant Singh in person with case file.
Heard. Record perused.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case I take cognizance of offences punishable u/s 506/507/509/354D/34 IPC. There is sufficient material on record to summon accused Nirmal Sen, Chetanya Jangid and Bhawesh Mehta.
Considering that accused Nirmal Sen and Chetanya Jangid are stated to be on Police Bail, therefore, let summons be issued against accused Nirmal Sen and Chetanya Jangid and notice to their sureties returnable on NDOH.
Considering that accused Bhawesh Mehta is stated to be without arrest, therefore, let summons be issued against accused returnable on NDOH. Let IO be summoned with FSL result for NDOH.
Put up on 23.11.2023."
(emphasis supplied)
4. MAINTAINABILITY OF REVISION
(i) Ld. Addl. PP submitted during the course of arguments that revision is not maintainable as equally efficacious remedy is available to petitioner by way of moving a discharge application. Hence, the threshold issue is whether the revision petition is maintainable against a summoning order. Section 397 Cr.P.C. empowers this Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction over orders of magistrate courts to ensure correctness, legality, or propriety. However, Section 397(2) bars revision against interlocutory orders.
(ii)Summoning orders under Section 204 Cr.P.C., issued post-cognizance under Section 190, are not purely interlocutory but intermediate in DLND010019522025 Page 5 of 15 Cr Rev. No.151/2025 NIRMAL SEN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI nature, as they substantially affect the rights of the accused by compelling appearance and initiating trial. This classification renders them amenable to revision.
(iii) In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that orders rejecting pleas which, if accepted, would conclude proceedings are not interlocutory. Summoning orders fit this criterion, impacting liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
(iv) Further, in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam (1999) 3 SCC 134, Hon'ble Apex Court explicitly ruled that summoning orders are intermediate and revisable under Section 397, as their reversal could terminate proceedings absent a prima facie case.
(v) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jinagar, (2004) 7 SCC 338, has held that a summoning order passed by a Magistrate is revisable.
(vi) Thus, the present revision is maintainable.
5. GROUNDS OF REVISION
(i) The revisionist challenges the impugned order on the following grounds:
1. The order was passed without application of judicial mind, as the ingredients of Sections 34, 354D, 506, 507, and 509 IPC are not met, even assuming the alleged comment at face value.
2. The revisionist has been made a scapegoat, while persons named in the FIR and the complainant's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement have not been arrayed as accused, indicating arbitrary prosecution.
6. FINDINGS ON THE GROUNDS
(i) This Court has examined the chargesheet, statements, and evidence on DLND010019522025 Page 6 of 15 Cr Rev. No.151/2025 NIRMAL SEN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI record. The sole basis for summoning the revisionist is the alleged Instagram comment: "You should havFe commit suicide instead of that innocent guy," posted amid public outrage linking the complainant to the Gurugram suicide. After careful consideration of the material on record, the grounds raised in the revision petition, the chargesheet, and the applicable legal provisions, this Court makes the following detailed findings:
1. NON-APPLICATION OF JUDICIAL MIND
1. The power to summon an accused is a serious judicial function that cannot be exercised mechanically. The Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, categorically held:
"The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law available thereto. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."
2. Similarly, in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609, the Supreme Court emphasized:
"However, the words 'sufficient grounds for proceeding' appearing in the Section are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself."
3. The impugned order dated 25.05.2023 merely states:
"Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case I take cognizance of offences punishable u/s 506/507/509/354D/34 IPC. There is sufficient material on record to summon accused Nirmal Sen, Chetanya DLND010019522025 Page 7 of 15 Cr Rev. No.151/2025 NIRMAL SEN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI Jangid and Bhawesh Mehta."
2. This order is bereft of any reasoning, analysis, or consideration of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. The learned CJM has failed to:
1. Examine whether the essential ingredients of each alleged offence are prima facie satisfied
2. Consider the nature and content of the alleged post attributed to the revisionist
3. Analyze whether the alleged act falls within the ambit of the sections mentioned in charge-sheet
4. Provide any reasoning for concluding that sufficient material exists Such mechanical adoption without judicial scrutiny violates the well- established principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
2. DETAILED ANALYSIS OF EACH ALLEGED OFFENCE
1. SECTION 34 IPC - COMMON INTENTION As it is alleged that accused committed the alleged act in furtherance of common intention, hence, before discussing the ingredients of individual sections, the evidence to support the allegation of meeting of minds for commission of the offence alleged is being discussed.
Essential Ingredients : Section 34 IPC deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. The essential ingredients are:
1. Criminal act committed by several persons
2. Pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds
3. Participation in the criminal act DLND010019522025 Page 8 of 15 Cr Rev. No.151/2025 NIRMAL SEN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI Act done in furtherane of common intention
4. In Mahbub Shah v. King Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118 , the Privy Council held that to invoke the aid of Section 34 successfully, it must be shown that the criminal act was done by several persons, that it was done in furtherance of the common intention of all, and that the person sought to be made liable had shared the common intention.
5. In Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1 , it was held that before a person can be vicariously liable under Section 34 for the act of another, it must be established that there was a pre-arranged plan and the act complained of was done in furtherance of such plan.
6. From the material on record, specifically the chargesheet, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest:
1. Pre-arranged Plan: No evidence of any coordination, planning, or prior concert between the revisionist and co-accused
2. Common Criminal Object: The alleged post appears to be an isolated comment without any connection to a broader criminal conspiracy
3. Participation in Joint Criminal Act : The revisionist's alleged act (a single post) shows no nexus with the activities of other accused persons
4. Furtherance of Common Intention: No material to demonstrate that all accused persons intended to achieve a common unlawful objective DLND010019522025 Page 9 of 15 Cr Rev. No.151/2025 NIRMAL SEN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI
7. The charge-sheet reveals that different accused persons posted different types of content at different times through different social media accounts. There is no evidence of coordination or joint planning.
8. In the court's view, the revisionist cannot be regarded as having acted in furtherance of a common intention and, accordingly, cannot be held liable for the actions of the co-accused. It remains to be determined whether the revisionist's individual conduct (a single Instagram post), considered separately from the actions of the other accused persons, constitutes any offence.
9. SECTION 354D IPC - STALKING
(i) Essential Ingredients : Section 354D IPC defines stalking as follows:
1. Any man who follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman
2. To foster personal interaction repeatedly
3. Despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman
4. OR monitors the use by a woman of internet, email or any other form of electronic communication
(ii) The provision was introduced to protect women from persistent unwanted attention and harassment. The essence lies in "repeated conduct" with intent to foster personal interaction.
(iii) Detailed Analysis:
1. Repeated Contact Requirement:The chargesheet reveals only ONE alleged post attributed to the revisionist: "You should havFe commit suicide instead of that innocent guy." This single instance cannot, by DLND010019522025 Page 10 of 15 Cr Rev. No.151/2025 NIRMAL SEN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI any stretch of legal interpretation, constitute "repeated contact" as mandated by Section 354D IPC. The essence of stalking lies in persistence and repetition. A single isolated act, however objectionable, would not constitute stalking within the meaning of Section 354D IPC.
2. Intent to Foster Personal Interaction : The alleged post contains no attempt to establish personal contact, communication, or interaction with the complainant. It neither seeks response nor attempts to initiate any form of personal relationship.
3. Clear Indication of Disinterest : The prosecution has failed to establish that there was any prior interaction between the revisionist and complainant, or that the complainant had ever indicated disinterest to the revisionist specifically.
4. Monitoring Electronic Communication : There is no allegation or evidence that the revisionist monitored the complainant's internet usage, email, or electronic communications. The complainant's Instagram profile was admittedly public with thousands of followers.
5. The essential ingredients of Section 354D IPC are completely absent.
A single alleged post cannot constitute stalking.
10. SECTION 506 IPC - CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION
(i) Essential Ingredients:Section 503 IPC defines criminal intimidation, and Section 506 prescribes punishment. The essential ingredients are:
1. Threatening any person with injury to:
1. His person, reputation, or property, OR
2. The person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested DLND010019522025 Page 11 of 15 Cr Rev. No.151/2025 NIRMAL SEN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI
2. Such threat must be with intent to:
1. Cause alarm to that person, OR
2. Cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, OR
3. Cause that person to omit to do any act which he is legally entitled to do
(ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that to constitute the offence of criminal intimidation, there must be a threat of injury to person, reputation or property of the complainant or someone in whom the complainant is interested, and such threat must be with intent to cause alarm or to coerce the complainant into doing or not doing something.
(iii) The alleged post attributed to the revisionist states: " You should havFe commit suicide instead of that innocent guy".
1. Nature of the Statement : This statement, even if taken at face value, does not constitute a "threat" within the legal definition. It appears to be:
1. An expression of personal opinion about a past incident
2. A comparative statement about two different persons
3. NOT a threat to cause future harm to the complainant
2. Absence of Threat Element : The statement contains no indication of:
1. Future harmful action by the revisionist
2. Conditional threat (if you do X, I will do Y)
3. Warning of impending danger
4. Declaration to cause injury
(iv) In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 , Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with online speech, emphasized the distinction between offensive speech and criminal intimidation. It was held that DLND010019522025 Page 12 of 15 Cr Rev. No.151/2025 NIRMAL SEN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI mere expression of opinion, however strong or even offensive, would not constitute criminal intimidation unless it contains a clear threat of harm with intent to cause alarm.
(v) In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574 , Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the law does not permit the inference of criminal intent from the mere fact that language used might be considered offensive or objectionable.
(vi) The statement made by petitioner appears to be made in the context of a separate incident where a 17-year-old boy committed suicide. The reference to "that innocent guy" clearly points to this separate incident, not any threat to the complainant. Therefore, in the opinion of the court the alleged post does not contain any threat and therefore no offence under Section 506 IPC is made out.
11. SECTION 507 IPC - CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION BY ANONYMOUS COMMUNICATION
(i) Essential Ingredients:Section 507 IPC is a supplementary provision to Section 506 IPC with additional requirements:
1. All ingredients of Section 506 IPC must be satisfied
2. Additionally, the criminal intimidation must be by anonymous communication OR
3. The accused must have taken precaution to conceal his name or abode from the person threatened
(ii) Since the essential ingredients of Section 506 IPC are not satisfied (as established above), Section 507 IPC automatically fails. Additionally, the alleged post was made from Instagram account "@thenirmalsen"
which clearly identifies the user as "Nirmal Sen." The communication DLND010019522025 Page 13 of 15 Cr Rev. No.151/2025 NIRMAL SEN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI was not anonymous. There is no evidence that the revisionist took any precaution to conceal his identity. The Instagram account was linked to his mobile number and email ID.
(iii) In the opinion of the court no offence under Section 507 IPC is made out.
12. SECTION 509 IPC - INSULT TO MODESTY OF WOMAN
(i) Essential Ingredients :Section 509 IPC punishes any word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. The essential ingredients are:
1. Word, gesture, or act by the accused
2. Intended to insult the modesty of a woman
3. Such word, gesture, or act must be capable of outraging the sense of decency of a woman In Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194 , Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is the action of the offender such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman.
(ii) The alleged post "You should havFe commit suicide instead of that innocent guy" contains:
1. No reference to the complainant's gender
2. No sexual connotations
3. No vulgar, obscene, or indecent language
4. No words targeting the complainant's modesty or dignity as a woman
2. There is no evidence to suggest that the post was intended to insult DLND010019522025 Page 14 of 15 Cr Rev. No.151/2025 NIRMAL SEN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI the modesty of the complainant. The statement appears to be a general comment about a different incident involving a different person.
3. In M.V. Joseph v. State of Kerala, 2024: KER: 36566 1, the Kerala High Court held that mere utterance of unpleasant or abusive words without an intention either to insult the modesty of the woman or to intrude upon the privacy of such woman would not attract offence under Section 509 of IPC.
4. The alleged post though not in good taste, makes no reference to the complainant as a woman and contains no gender-specific content. It appears to be a comment on the broader controversy rather than a targeted attack on the complainant's modesty.
5. No offence under Section 509 IPC is made out against the revisionist.1
11. In order to bring home an offence punishable under Section 509 IPC, the ingredients are; utterance of any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, with an intention to insult the modesty of a woman, or with intention to intrude upon the privacy of such a woman.
12. Coming to the definition of the word 'modesty', the same has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. So it is worth to look into its dictionary meaning. As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Third Edition) modesty is the quality of being modest and in relation to woman means 'womanly propriety of behaviour, scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct". The word 'modest' in relation to woman is defined in the above dictionary as 'decorous in manner and conduct; not forward or lewd; shamefast". Webster's Third new International Dictionary of the English Language defines modesty as"freedom from coarseness, indelicacy or indecency' a regard for propriety in dress, speech or conduct". In the Oxford English Dictionary (1993 Ed) the meaning of the word 'modesty' is given as 'womanly propriety of behaviour, scrupulous chastity of thought, speech and conduct (in man or woman); reserve or sense of shame proceeding from instinctive aversion to impure or coarse suggestions.
13. To sum up, mere utterance of unpleasant or abusive words without an intention either to insult the modesty of the woman or to intrude upon the privacy of such woman would not attract offence under Section 509 of IPC. Here the allegation is confined to use of a proverb which contains an abusive element, as extracted herein above. Merely because the accused made a comment/proverb which contains an abusive element, in reply to a humiliating comment made by the defacto complainant, stating that the sim seemed like one bitten by a dog, it could not be held that the accused either insulted the modesty of a woman or intruded on her privacy.
14. On evaluation of the materials available, it could not be held that that the accused uttered the above comment usually used as a proverb with intention to insult the modesty of woman or to intrude upon the privacy of such a woman. Thus in the case at hand, the ingredients to attract offence under Section 509 IPC are not made out. In such view of the matter, the petition is liable to succeed.DLND010019522025 Page 15 of 15 Cr Rev. No.151/2025
NIRMAL SEN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI FINAL ORDER
13. For the reasons aforesaid, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned summoning order dated 25.05.2023, insofar as it pertains to the revisionist Nirmal Sen, is set aside. Proceedings against him in FIR No.142/20, PS Special Cell stand closed.
14. No order as to costs.
15. TCR, if any be returned, with copy of this judgment.
16. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
SAURABH Digitally Pronounced in open court on this PARTAP signed by SAURABH SINGH 19th day of August, 2025 PARTAP LALER SINGH LALER (Saurabh Partap Singh Laler) ASJ-05 New Delhi Patiala House Courts Delhi/19.08.2025