Madras High Court
Ganeshan @ City Ganesan vs / on 27 August, 2024
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.O.P.No.875 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.No.875 of 2023
& Crl.M.P.Nos.443 & 446 of 2023
1. Ganeshan @ City Ganesan.
2. Syed Abithahir.
3. Aruputharaj. ... Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 3
/versus/
1. State Rep. by,
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Tiruppur South Police Station,
Tiruppur.
Crime No.1510/2020 ... Respondent/Complainant
2. Kannapiran. ... Respondent/Defacto complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call
for the records in C.C.No.213 of 2021 on the file of the Learned Judicial
Magistrate-II, Tiruppur and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.S.Aswin Prasanna
For R1 : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.O.P.No.875 of 2023
ORDER
On the complaint given by one Kannapiran, the respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.1510 of 2020 on 15.10.2020 for the offences under Sections 153, 504, 505(1)(b) of I.P.C and Section 67 of Information Technology Act.
2. The complaint is against this petitioner and four others. In the complaint, it is stated that when the complainant, an active member of AIADMK party was discussing with his partyman in a sweet stall, he received a memes in his facebook account alleging that the AIADMK M.L.A Thiru.Gunasekaran has spent Rs.7.70 lakhs for removing the hand pump and installing electrical motor pump and criticising spending Rs.7.7 lakhs for a water tank and spending public money for conversion of hard water to soft drinking water. A defamatory message spread through the Facebook account by way of memes, hence final report filed by the respondent police and same taken on file by Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruppur in C.C.No.213 of 2021. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6 Crl.O.P.No.875 of 2023
3. Challenging the final report on the ground that the complainant Kannapiran alleging receipt of memes which is in defamatory nature, has no locus to file the complaint since the memes was not targeted the complainant but against one Thiru.Gunasekaran. M.L.A, Tirupur South Constituency. Furthermore, the content of the memes does not attract any of the offences for which cognizance taken.
4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners further state that even assuming the content of the memes attracts any of the offence stated, there is no evidence to establish nexus between the memes and the accused person.
5. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the 1 st respondent states that the statement of witnesses recorded in the course of the investigation and the content of the memes would disclose the commission of offences punishable under Section 153, 504 and 505(1)(b) of I.P.C and Section 67 of Information Technology Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 Crl.O.P.No.875 of 2023
6. Perusal of the record relied by the prosecution shows that except statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and the transcript of memes, the prosecution relies on electronic document. However, the electronic document namely, memes not been collected in the manner known to law. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the 1st respondent shows the certificate alleged to have been given by Mr.Kannapiran that he has taken a screenshot of the offending memes in his cellphone and took print out from the party computer. It is unfortunate that Investigating Officer has not understood the significance of a certified copy under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, to vouchsafe a electronic document relied as evidence in the Court of law. The Facebook message which alleged to have been certified by Mr.Kannapiran is a printout taken from the party office. The said computer is not under the control or use of said Mr.Kannapiran. The cellphone in which the screenshot taken is a electronic device which should have been the source for the prosecution for introducing the electronic document in the course of trial. The person who is in possession and control of the cellphone in which the screenshot taken should have given the certificate and the details about the cellphone. However, the certificate alleged to have been given by Mr.Kannapiran does not carry any such information. That apart, as pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Investigating Officer in this case has not collected any details https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 Crl.O.P.No.875 of 2023 about the Facebook account of the accused or Twitter account as mentioned in 65-B certificate. There is a grave contradiction in the case of the prosecution whether the offending memes was forwarded from the Facebook account or Twitter account.
7. For the said reason, the complaint in C.C.No.213 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur stands quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
27.08.2024
Index : Yes/No.
Neutral Citation : Yes/No.
bsm
To:-
1. The Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruppur.
2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Tiruppur South Police Station, Tiruppur.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6 Crl.O.P.No.875 of 2023 Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
bsm Crl.O.P.No.875 of 2023 27.08.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6