A complaint cannot be returned for lack of the accused's postal address, as neither BNSS nor IT Act require it, emphasizing procedural flexibility in the digital age.

ORDER :

C.S.DIAS, J.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case raises the question of procedural significance: Whether a private complaint can be returned by a Magistrate on the ground that the postal address of the accused has not been furnished?

2. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Court of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate–II, Thrissur, against the 3^rd respondent alleging her to have committed the offences under Sections 356(2), 351, 61 and 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for brevity, ‘BNS’) and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘IT Act’).

3. The gravamen of the petitioner's case in the complaint is that he is the Joint Secretary of a Non- Governmental Organisation. On 23.06.2025, the 3^rd respondent, through a social media thread, posted false, malicious and defamatory allegations against the petitioner, disseminated defamatory materials through WhatsApp messages to the President of the petitioner’s organisation and third parties, inflicting reputational harm and mental agony to the petitioner, and continues to repeatedly post unsubstantiated and malicious comments against the petitioner on Facebook, leading to unknown persons targeting the petitioner online. Although the petitioner issued a legal notice to the 3^rd respondent via her WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram accounts, the 3rd respondent has not responded; instead, she continues to post sweeping, baseless, and defamatory allegations against the petitioner on social media. As the acts of the 3^rd respondent attract the above offences, the petitioner was constrained to file the complaint. However, by Annexure A3 order, the learned Magistrate has returned the complaint on the sole ground that the postal address of the 3^rd respondent has not been furnished. The order returning the complaint is ex facie erroneous and unjustifiable.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, inter alia, contending that neither the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha (‘BNSS’, for short) nor the BNS prescribe the furnishing of the postal address of the accused as a precondition to entertain the complaint. Under Sections 174, 195 and 225 of the BNSS, the learned Magistrate is empowered to issue directions for assisting in tracing the accused's address through telecom operators and social media intermediaries. G.O.(M.S) No.172/2025/Home dated 17.09.2025 permits service of summons through a disclosed electronic communication address. The petitioner is unaware of the postal address of the 3^rd respondent, who has committed the offences through social media. Perpetrators who commit offences in cyberspace often operate under pseudonymous or partially disclosed identities, making it impossible to locate their postal addresses. Insisting for postal address at the threshold would leave the petitioner remediless. Therefore, the learned Magistrate may be directed to accept the complaint on file.

5. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Registrar (District Judiciary) has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the High Court (2^nd respondent), inter alia, stating that under the provisions of the BNSS and the Kerala Electronic Processes (Issuance, Service and Execution) Rules, 2025, it is permissible to send summons through electronic means such as WhatsApp and Telegram, at the discretion of the Court. The Magistrates insist on disclosure of the accused's postal address, not as a matter of technical rigidity, but with a legitimate objective of ensuring that the process o