Madras High Court
Ayyapparaj @ Ashwin vs The Sub-Inspector Of Police on 1 September, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.225 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 01.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.225 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P(MD) Nos.166 and 168 of 2024
Ayyapparaj @ Ashwin ... Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Theni Police Station,
Theni District.
Cr.No.339 of 2022. ...1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Chennaram ...2nd Respondent/Defacto
Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call
for the final report in connection with C.C.No.601 of 2022 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, Theni District and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jeyakumar
For R1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
For R2 : No appearance
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:04:10 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.225 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final report in C.C.No.601 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, for the offences punishable under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. The allegation in the Final Report registered is that there were disputes between the defacto complainant and the petitioner with regard to enjoyment of property; that, on account of the same, the petitioner contacted the defacto complainant over phone and asked her WhatsApp number stating that he was in possession of photographs and videographs of her son along with a woman, and that if she interfered in the petitioner’s affairs, he would post those photographs and videographs on Facebook and WhatsApp. Thus, the petitioner is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned final report has been filed pursuant to the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant on account of previous enmity; that the petitioner has not uploaded any of the alleged photographs or videographs of the defacto complainant’s son with another woman on any social media platform; that even otherwise the 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:04:10 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.225 of 2024 allegations are accepted, they would not constitute the offences under Section 294(b) IPC or Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The learned counsel also drew attention to the relevant statutory provisions and relied upon the judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10623 of 2017, dated 29.11.2019, in support of his submissions.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation revealed that the petitioner had called the defacto complainant over phone and threatened to upload the photographs of her son along with a woman on social media platforms and, therefore, the offences under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act are made out.
Hence, he prayed that the impugned final report cannot be quashed.
5. Though notice was served on the second respondent, none had entered appearance.
6. The allegation against the petitioner is that, on account of an earlier dispute, he called the defacto complainant and threatened to post photographs and videos of her son along with another woman on social media platforms.
Admittedly, the petitioner had not uploaded any such photograph or video. Be 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:04:10 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.225 of 2024 that as it may, the allegations, even if accepted as true, do not constitute the offence either under Section 294(b) IPC or under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Section 66 of Information Technology Act reads as follows:
66.Computer related offences.–If any person, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section,–
(a) the word ―dishonestly shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 24 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
(b) the word ―fraudulently‖ shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 25 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
7. It is not the case of the defacto complainant that the petitioner had committed any of the acts referred to in Section 43 of the Information Technology Act. Sec 43 of the Information Technology Act reads as follows:
43.Penalty and compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc.–If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is in charge of a computer, computer system or computer network,– 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:04:10 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.225 of 2024
(a) accesses or secures access to such computer, computer system or computer network or computer resource;
(b) downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base or information from such computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium;
(c) introduces or causes to be introduced any computer contaminant or computer virus into any computer, computer system or computer network;
(d) damages or causes to be damaged any computer, computer system or computer network, data, computer data base or any other programmes residing in such computer, computer system or computer network;
(e) disrupts or causes disruption of any computer, computer system or computer network;
(f) denies or causes the denial of access to any person authorised to access any computer, computer system or computer network by any means;
(g) provides any assistance to any person to facilitate access to a computer, computer system or computer network in contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder;
(h) charges the services availed of by a person to the account of another person by tampering with or manipulating any computer, computer system, or computer network;
5/10https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:04:10 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.225 of 2024
(i) destroys, deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means;
(j) steal, conceal, destroys or alters or causes any person to steal, conceal, destroy or alter any computer source code used for a computer resource with an intention to cause damage;
he shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation to the person so affected.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section,–
(i) ―computer contaminant means any set of computer instructions that are designed–
(a) to modify, destroy, record, transmit data or programme residing within a computer, computer system or computer network; or
(b) by any means to usurp the normal operation of the computer, computer system, or computer network;
(ii) ―computer data-base means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions in text, image, audio, video that are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalised manner or have been produced by a computer, computer system or computer network and are intended for use in a computer, computer system or computer network;
(iii) ―computer virus means any computer instruction, information, data or programme that destroys, damages, degrades or adversely affects the performance of a computer resource or attaches itself to another computer resource and 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:04:10 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.225 of 2024 operates when a programme, data or instruction is executed or some other event takes place in that computer resource;
(iv) ―damage‖ means to destroy, alter, delete, add, modify or rearrange any computer resource by any means.
(v) ―computer source code means the listing of programme, computer commands, design and layout and programme analysis of computer resource in any form.
8. None of the allegations in the final report disclose the commission of any act enumerated under Section 43 of the said Act. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner, without the permission of the owner or any person, who is in charge of a computer or computer system, had accessed information or caused any of the acts mentioned in the aforesaid provision.
Hence, the offence under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act is not made out.
9. It is well settled that, in order to attract Section 294(b) IPC, the accused must have committed an act, which is obscene in a public place or must have uttered any obscene words or sung obscene songs in a public place.
Further in the final report or the materials in support of the same, there is no mention about the exact words uttered by the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:04:10 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.225 of 2024 Court in N.S.Madhanagopal and Another Vs. K.Lalitha reported in (2022) 17 SCC 818 has held as follows:
“8. It has to be noted that in the instant case, the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b). None of the records disclose the alleged words used by the accused. It may not be the requirement of law to reproduce in all cases the entire obscene words if it is lengthy, but in the instant case, there is hardly anything on record. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC.
9.To prove the offence under Section 294 IPC mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof of establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case. No one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the appellants-
accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out.'' 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:04:10 pm ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.225 of 2024
10. There is no allegation in the instant Final Report to attract the offence under Sec. 294(b) of IPC also. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned final report alleged the offences under Section 294(b) IPC or under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, cannot be sustained.
Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed by quashing the final report in C.C.No.601 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
01.09.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Indu
To
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Theni Police Station,
Theni District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:04:10 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.225 of 2024
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Indu
Crl.O.P(MD).No.225 of 2024
01.09.2025
10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:04:10 pm )