Madras High Court
Jayapragash vs State Represented By on 1 August, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 23.07.2025
Pronounced on : 01.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 and
Crl.MP.Nos.16862 & 16863 of 2024
Jayapragash ... Petitioner
Versus
1.State Represented by
Inspector of Police,
Cyber Crime Cell,
Central Crime Branch,
Chennai
2.Dr.George Paul
(impleaded as per order dated
19.06.2015 made in Crl.MP.No.11504
of 2025 in Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2025) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of
BNSS, praying to call for the records and to set aside the order dated
22.11.2024 in Crl.MP.No.17658 of 2024 in CC.No.9238 of 2018 on the
file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Manishankar,
Page 1 of 24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm )
Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024
Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.Suraj
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath,
Government Advocate(crl.side)
For R2 : Mr.T.Mohan,
Senior Counsel
for M/s.P.Krithika Kamal
ORDER
This criminal revision case has been preferred against the order dated 22.11.2024 passed in Crl.MP.No.17658 of 2024 in CC.No.9238 of 2018 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, thereby dismissing the petition filed for seeking to discharge the petitioner.
A) CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was lodged by the one, Dr.R.Gunaseelan alleging that when he returned to Chennai for presenting a scientific paper on 21st October 2013 in Barcelona in the International Conference of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, he had received an e-mail forwarded by his friend Dr.Kishore Vinayak to his personal e-mail address which had been sent originally by maxillofacial Page 2 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 surgeon, Tertiary Government Hospital from e-mail address [email protected]. There were malicious, wrong and defamatory e-mails against him and he was not able to identify the sender of the e-mails. Therefore, he requested to identify the person and take necessary action as per law. On receipt of the said complaint, FIR was registered in crime No.30 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Section 66A of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Sections 500 and 507 of IPC. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report, in which the petitioner is arrayed as A1.
3. The petitioner is charged for the offence punishable under Section 66D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 alleging that he is working as a Software Engineer in Balaji Dental and Craniofacial Hospital, Chennai and due to the existing enmity between the Director of Balaji Dental and Craniofacial Hospital and the complainant and other maxillofacial surgeons, the petitioner created a fake e-mail address, [email protected] from his emachines laptop by using airtel data card on 23.10.2013 to influence the upcoming election of AMOSI of India, in order to deceive the dental doctors Page 3 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 association members. He had sent the e-mail pretending to be a maxillofacial surgeon, tertiary government hospital to several individual doctors and association members so as to hide his real identity and impersonated for damaging the character and reputation. The petitioner has developed website and software for the hospital requirements and is maintaining the same. The complainant and other association members were presenting a scientific paper on 21st October 2013 in Barcelona in the international conference of oral and maxillofacial surgery and after returning to Chennai, the complainant received e-mail forwarded by his friend to his e-mail address with defamatory and malicious statements.
The said e-mail originally was received by [email protected] from e-mail address [email protected] and BCC copy was received by the e-mail address [email protected] which belongs to Gunaseelan's friend Erikahugu on 23.10.2013 who in turn sent the same message from his another e-mail address i.e. [email protected] to Kishore Nayak’s e-mail address on 24.10.2013. The forwarded e-mail contained the following information:
"Dear Indian ral maxillofacial surgeons, The meeting of IAOMS is currently happening at Barcelona. The Page 4 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 current President Dr. Kishore Nayak and his extended family of Health and Medical Advancement Trust (HMA) is on a visit to this place. Dr. Kishore Nayak through his contacts at IAOMS has made Drs. Krishnamoorthy Bonanthaya, George Paul, Gunaseelan Rajan, Manjunath Rai, Sanjiv Nair and P. Anantanarayan as speakers for this meet, causing a huge loss to the ICOMS/IAOMS. This is currently the talk at Barcelona, where Indian's had become a laughing stock, thanks to Dr. Kishore Nayak. The HMA trust presided by Drs. Kishore Nayak, George Paul, Gunaseelan Rajan had been involved in a series of malpractices supposedly through Dental Council of India and has been raided by CBI. Dr. Gunaseelan Rajan was arrested repeatedly by CBI in this regard. Subsequently their DCI memberships were stripped by the Tamil Nadu State Government. The ill gotten money has been spent by HMA trust members to build medical college hospitals, renovate clinic and build a construction empire for his son at Bangalore. The reason for taking a huge number of "followers" to Barcelona is to seek their support for the forthcoming elections at AMOSI. The entire team of speakers was referred by Dr. Krishna Nayak, with only intention of fielding and having their own sets of candidates at Bhubaneswar. The same set of people made a huge cry when the MCh program was launched by DCI while at the same time they were running the DCI from back. It would Page 5 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 have taken a phone call to set the thing right. To portray as saviours of oral surgery, they are playing havoc with hundreds of OMFS post graduates. They took 500 million rupees to grant 1197 PG seats affiliation across India and spoiled youngster's chance/life. This is the true color and nature of the people who runs the AOMSI. Answer them in the forthcoming AMOSI meeting by voting against them. We call upon all members to attend this conference and vote against such people. With regards Maxillofacial Surgeon, Tertiary Government Hospital"
4. Though there is no person under the name and style of maxillofacial surgeon, tertiary government hospital, the e-mail was sent by the petitioner that he had created a fake name as MFS surgeons and an e-mail address [email protected] from his laptop by using his airtel data card. Thereafter, he had sent the content to the addresses that were copied from IAOMS website. The final report has been filed before the trial court i.e. IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. However, the final report was rejected by the trial court by order dated 08.09.2015 on the ground that there is no material to show that the Page 6 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 offence is committed with respect to Section 66D of Information Technology Act and Sections 506(I) & 507 of IPC.
5. Thereafter, the complainant filed revision as against the said order before this Court and this Court set aside the order and liberty was granted to the defacto complainant to file a protest petition against the said order. After hearing the defacto complainant, the trial court ordered for further investigation. Thereafter, final report was filed for the charges under Section 66D of Information Technology Act and Sections 506(i), 507 of IPC. Further, the first respondent deleted the second respondent from the charge. Aggrieved by the same, once again the defacto complainant filed protest petition. Thereafter, the trial court had taken cognizance against both the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 506(i) and 507 of IPC and section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000 by order dated 28.09.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the summons before this Court and the same was dismissed. However, the defacto complainant and the petitioner entered into compromise and filed quash petition before this Court in Crl.OP.No.25521 of 2021. It was allowed and the entire proceedings was Page 7 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 quashed by order dated 23.12.2021. At that juncture, the second respondent herein, who was examined as list of witnesses No.2 during investigation, approached this Court to recall the order passed by this Court dated 23.12.2021 in Crl.OP.No.25521 of 2021 on the ground that he was not a party to the compromise entered between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and he is also one of the victims. Therefore, this Court recalled the order and directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. Pending framing of charges, the petitioner filed the petition to discharge him from all the charges, which has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal revision case has been filed. B) SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL:
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that after completion of investigation on 02.11.2017, the first respondent filed final report for the charge under Section 66D of Information Technology Act. Thereafter, by order dated 28.09.2018, the petitioner was also charged for the offences punishble under Sections 506(i) & 507 of IPC. There was absolutely no overt act to attract charges under Section 506 and 507 of IPC. In order to attract the charge under Section 506(i) of Page 8 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 IPC, there is no material whatsoever in the final report. Likewise, there is absolutely no material in the final report to attract the charge under Section 507 of IPC. No one has spoken anything in support of the statement recorded from the second respondent. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the alleged e-mail was sent to one, Dr.Kishore Nayak who was examined as LW7 from the e-mail address [email protected], who in turn forwarded the said e-mail to the defacto complainant and other witnesses. Even assuming that the said e-mail was sent from the petitioner’s e-mail address, it does not contain any ingredient to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC. That apart, the said e-mail was sent to the defacto complainant from one, Kishore Nayak. The prosecution failed to examine the e-mail address called [email protected] owned by him. According to the prosecution, it belongs to a Kenyan friend of the petitioner herein.
However, he was not examined by the prosecution. Admittedly, the petitioner did not send any e-mail to any witness directly. Therefore, there is no ingredient to attract the criminal intimidation under Section 503 of IPC for the purpose of offences under Section 506 and 507 of IPC. Page 9 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024
7. He further submitted that the essential ingredient is “cheating” for the offence under Section 66D of Information Technology Act. The term 'cheating' is defined under Section 415 of IPC and a conjoint reading of the both the provision would reveal that there should be an unlawful loss or unlawful gain to any person by making someone to do or abstain from doing by practicing deception. The alleged e-mail had not caused any unlawful loss or unlawful gain to anyone. Further, it did not deceive someone to do or abstain from doing something. Therefore, even assuming that the said e-mail was sent by the petitioner herein, it would not constitute any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that though the petitioner entered into compromise with the first accused, it would not amount to admission of guilt. Unfortunately, the trial court dismissed the discharge petition on the ground that the petitioner had already admitted his guilt and entered into compromise with the defacto complainant. In fact, both had amicably settled the issue but not because the petitioner had admitted his guilt. Further, challenging of summons issued to the petitioner has got nothing to do with the discharge petition. Because of the alleged e-mail, no injury was caused to the defacto complainant and the second respondent herein. The said e- Page 10 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 mail was never sent to the defacto complainant or the second respondent herein. It does not contain any substance to intimidate the defacto complainant or the second respondent or any other witness. Further, non- examining the actual sender of the e-mail is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, even if the trial continues, there is absolutely no chance for conviction. Furthermore, the crime is of the year 2013. C) SUBMISSIONS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S COUNSEL:
8. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the petitioner already challenged the summon issued to him on the very same ground in Crl.OP.No.28725 of 2018 and the same was dismissed by this Court by order dated 28.09.2020. The second respondent is also one of the victims and in the e-mail, there is malicious, wrong and defamatory material against the second respondent and it clearly attracts the offence under Section 66D of Information Technology Act, Section 506(i) & 507 of IPC. The petitioner is working as software engineer in the second accused hospital. Due to enemity with the Director of the said hospital in order to harm the reputation of the members of the dental doctors association, he had sent Page 11 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 an e-mail message and made it appear like it was sent by maxillofacial surgeons to several doctors and association members to the effect that the defacto complainant and the second respondent have involved in serious malpractices through Dental Council of India and also facing CBI cases. In fact, the petitioner also challenged the dismissal order of challenging the summons before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the same was also dismissed. The e-mail sent by the accused had tarnished the second respondent's unblemished professional career spanning over four decades. Therefore, the trial court rightly dismissed the petition filed to discharge him and as such, the order of the trial court does not require any interference by this Court.
9. Heard, the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused, all the materials placed before this Court. D) FINDINGS:
10. There are two accused in CC.No.9238 of 2018. Both are charged for the offences punishable under Section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 506(i) and 507 of IPC alleging that the defacto complainant is the proprietor of Rajan Dental Institute Private Page 12 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 Limited had received e-mail forwarded by his friend Dr.Kishore Nayak which had been sent by maxillofacial surgeon, tertiary government hospital from e-mail address [email protected]. The said e-mail has malicious, wrong and defamatory materials against the defacto complainant and others. After filing final report, there was compromise between the accused and the defacto complainant by way of amicable settlement between them. After compromise, they filed quash petition before this Court in Crl.OP.No.25521 of 2021 and the entire proceedings was quashed by this Court by order dated 23.12.2021. However, it was recalled by the request made by the second respondent herein who is also one of the victims in this case. Therefore, the trial court issued summons to the accused and the same was also challenged by the petitioner. Though it was dismissed and confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the petitioner herein filed petition to discharge him from all the charges. Though initially the first respondent charged the accused for the offence under Sections 66D of Information Technology Act, subsequently added the charges under Sections 506(i) & 507 of IPC. Page 13 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024
11. On perusal of the statements of the second respondent, revealed that the second respondent is a member of Dental Council of India and he is a private practitioner of dental surgery. He is also a member of Health and Advancement Trust (hereinafter called as 'HMA Trust') along with the defacto complainant and other doctors. He had held several posts in the National Association of Maxillo Facial Surgeons including the post of Honorary General Secretary and President. While being so, he received numerous e-mails from anonymous persons thereby spreading defamatory information. He also had received anonymous letters addressed to him. It was also forwarded to hundreds of people to tarnish his good name. While being so, the defacto complainant received e-mail from his friend’s e-mail address with malicious, wrong and defamatory e-mail. It contains allegation of misappropriation of money and indulging in malpractices through Dental Council of India. In fact, the Central Bureau of Investigation arrested the defacto complainant repeatedly and subsequently from Dental Council of India, memberships were stripped by the Tamilnadu State Governement. Further alleged that ill gotten money has been spent by HMA Trust members to build medical Page 14 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 college, renovate clinic and build a construction empire for his son at Bangalore.
12. Admittedly, the defacto complainant and others were arrested and they are facing charges under CBI. Now it has to be seen whether the contents of the e-mail attracts offence under Sections 66D of Information Technology Act, Sections 506(i) & 507 of IPC. In order to attract offence under Section 506(i) of IPC, no phone call was received by the defacto complainant or the second respondent. Even assuming that there was a phone call, whether it caused a threat to cause an injury, further that threat was made with an intention to cause an alarm, further the said phone call was made by the accused is to be found. In the absence of any such material, charge under Section 506(i) of IPC cannot be framed as against the accused. On perusal of the entire e-mail as well as the statement recorded from the defacto complainant and the second respondent, there is no material whatsoever to constitute the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC. The provision under Section 506 of IPC, deals with the punishment for the act of criminal intimidation. Criminal Page 15 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 intimidation is defined under Section 503 of IPC. It is relevant to extract provisions under Section 503 of IPC hereunder:
503. Criminal intimidation Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
13. Thus it is clear that the criminal intimidation would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person of causing an injury to the person, reputation or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to be any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
Page 16 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024
14. In the case on hand, even according to the case of the prosecution, the e-mail was sent from the e-mail address [email protected]. Thereafter, the said mail was sent from the e-mail address [email protected] to one, Dr.Kishore Nayak. Thereafter, it was forwarded by him to the defacto complainant. But the first respondent did not even enquire as to who owned the e-mail address [email protected]. In the final report, it was stated that the said e-mail belongs to a kenyan, who is a friend of the petitioner herein. However, in order to substantiate the same, the first respondent did not even enquire about the so called kenyan friend of the petitioner herein. Therefore, the prosecution failed to bring the original person, who owned the e-mail address and sent the e-mail to Dr.Kishore Nayak. Therefore, the said alleged e-mail was forwarded to the Kishore Nayak and in turn, he forwarded the same to the defacto complainant. Therefore, it is an anonymous e-mail. In fact, the second respondent stated in his statement that over the last two years, he received numerous e-mail from anonymous blog sites spreading defamatory and misinformation about him. Therefore, there is absolutely no material to connect the petitioner to the alleged e-mail. Only for the reason that he is working as software Page 17 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 engineer of the second accused hospital, he has been implicated as an accused. As state supra, even assuming that the said e-mail was sent by the petitioner by using his kenyan friend’s e-mail address, it does not contain any material to attract the charge under Section 506(i) of IPC.
15. Insofar as the charge under Section 507 of IPC is concerned, the ingredients are that the accused threatened some person, that such threat consisted of injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested, that he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat and that the threat was by a communication in which true name and residence of the accused was concealed. Therefore, there is no allegation of intimidation or threat to the second respondent or the defacto complainant in the e-mail. Therefore, the content of the e-mail neither contains ingredients of the offence Section 507 of IPC nor was it sent by the petitioner directly. Insofar as the offence under Section 66D of the Information technology Act is concerned, essential ingredients Page 18 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 include cheating. The term 'cheating' is defined under Section 415 of IPC. It s relevant to extract the provisions under Section 415 of IPC hereunder:
“415. Cheating Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.
16. A conjoint reading of both the Sections would reveal that there should be a minimum unlawful loss or an unlawful gain to any person by making someone to do or abstain from doing by practicing deception. Even assuming that the alleged e-mail was sent by the petitioner, it does not cause any unlawful loss or unlawful gain and it does not deceive anyone to do or abstain from doing something. In fact, the defacto complainant and others were arrested by CBI and they were facing prosecution. Therefore, though it is an anonymous e-mail, it contains some allegations about the offence committed by the defacto Page 19 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 complainant and others. Further, it was sent as an election campaign. Therefore, during the election, this kind of anonymous e-mails are common. Now in the computer era, social media is also used for election campaigns as it spreads the information quickly among general public. Therefore, these e-mails were neither to tarnish the image of the second respondent nor is defamatory in nature.
17. Further on perusal of records, it can be seen that the complaint was lodged on 01.11.2013 and the first respondent registered FIR on 11.01.2014. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report only on 02.11.2017 i.e. after the period of three years from the date of registration of FIR. The maximum punishment can be awarded for the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC is two years, 507 of IPC is two years and Section 66D of Information Technology Act is three years. As per the provisions under Section 468 of Cr.P.C, the time duration for taking cognizance is three years as the maximum punishment that could be awarded for the offence is three years. Admittedly, the prosecution had filed final report after a period of three years. Therefore, the trial court ought not to have taken cognizance for these charges. Page 20 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024
18. Further, the alleged e-mail was sent to one, Kishore Nayak from [email protected]. Further, the alleged e-mail was sent from [email protected] to the said [email protected], which was in turn sent to the Kishore Nayak's e-mail address. In turn, he forwarded the same to the defacto complainant. The said two e-mail addresses are unknown and the first respondent did not enquire the same as to whom those e-mail addresses belong to. In order to connect the petitioner, there is absolutely no material and as such no charges can be framed as against the accused. Without any material, the prosecution came to conclusion that [email protected] belongs to the petitioner. On perusal of those e-mail addresses also revealed that the said e-mail was originally sent from [email protected] to [email protected]. But the said Dr.Kishore Nayak received the alleged e-mail from an e-mail address [email protected]. There is absolutely no material to show that the e-mail was sent to [email protected] from [email protected]. Therefore, the prosecution mechanically filed final report charging the petitioner as if the petitioner had sent from [email protected] to [email protected] and in turn it was Page 21 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 sent to Kishore Nayak's e-mail address. There is no material to substantiate the said allegation. Therefore, there are no materials to frame charges against the accused for the offences under Section 66D of Information Technology Act and Sections 506(i) & 507 of IPC. Hence, the trial court ought not to have dismissed the discharge petition. As such, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be dismissed.
19. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 passed in Crl.MP.No.17658 of 2024 in CC.No.9238 of 2018 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai is set aside and the petitioner is discharged from all the charges in CC.No.9238 of 2018 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
20. In the result, this criminal revision case stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
01.08.2025 Internet:Yes Page 22 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 Neutral citation:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order lok G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, lok To
1.The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
2.Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, Central Crime Branch, Chennai
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 and Crl.MP.Nos.16862 & 16863 of 2024 Page 23 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm ) Crl.RC.No.2130 of 2024 01.08.2025 Page 24 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/08/2025 07:50:52 pm )