Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of these criminal original petitions, the petitioner was directed by this Court to file an affidavit once again https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11494 of 2018 etc. cases tendering apology and accordingly, he filed an affidavit before this Court on 08.4.2022. The petitioner was also directed to attend for an enquiry before the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, Central Crime Branch, Chennai, who, when the petitioner attended the enquiry, gave a questionnaire containing 22 questions and the petitioner answered all those questions clearly explaining that he was not the author of the message and that he had merely forwarded the message that was received from the said Mr.Thirumalai Sa (a) Thirumalai Sadagopan. In the light of the above stand taken by the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seek to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him based on the alleged derogatory message forwarded from the facebook account of the petitioner.

9. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the derogatory message was forwarded from the facebook account of the petitioner. The petitioner had taken a stand that he was not the author of the message and that he received the message from the said Mr.Thirumalai Sa (a) Thirumalai Sadagopan from U.S.A., and forwarded the same inadvertently without properly reading the message.

13. Hence, a case of this nature cannot be decided by applying the same yardstick to everyone. The more a person is popular in the society, he also carries more responsibility in what he conveys to the society. The petitioner, in the instant case, falls under the category of a person of high stature with many followers and he ought to have exercised more caution before forwarding the message from his facebook account. If such a caution has been thrown to the winds and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11494 of 2018 etc. cases as a result, it has had a very serious impact, the petitioner has to necessarily face it and cannot try to run away from the consequences by merely tendering an unconditional apology.

25. It is true that the petitioner removed the derogatory message from his facebook account even on the same day and he also apologized for having forwarded the message. These acts, by themselves, do not help the petitioner from facing the consequences for forwarding a derogatory message. An offence has already been committed and the petitioner cannot now escape from the offence by merely coming up with an apology statement subsequently.