SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Mad) 1497

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
I. Linga Bhaskar & Others - Petitioner
Versus
The State through the Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station & Another - Respondent
CRL.O.P.(MD)No. 3110 of 2017 & Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos. 2366 & 6773 of 2017
Decided on : 05-06-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Isaac Mohan Lal, Senior Counsel.
For the Respondents:K. Anbarasan, Government Advocate, G. Prabhu Rajadurai, Advocate.

Headnote:

Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 - Section 4 - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 - Section 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(t), 3(1)(u) - Information Technology Act - Section 67 - De-facto complainant - Working in BSNL Department - De- motivate executives - All petitioners are working in BSNL Department and second respondent / de-facto complainant is also in BSNL Department as Divisional Engineer (Rural) - It is stated that petitioners as well as second respondent are all members of an official whatsapp group - In complaint, second respondent has stated that her husband is a practicing Advocate in Tuticorin District for more than 25 years and that she has two children - She further described herself as a Divisional Engineer (Rural) in BSNL - She states in her complaint that she was also inducted as a member of whatsapp group which was intended to share complaints and deficiencies in service of BSNL and to rectify them and improve quality of service - Allegations in complaint is that recorded conversation of BSNL customers uploaded by her is wrongly understood by petitioners as one to degrade their efficiency - Held, Court is of view that First Information Report is liable to be quashed - In case on hand petitioners and second respondent are members of a whatsapp group - Everyone has a right to express their feelings and share their idea - Face of crying smiley is to comment about idea of second respondent in publishing or uploading a video of complaints made by BSNL customers regarding deficiencies in BSNL coverage - Court wanted petitioners to express their regret as de-facto complainant in her individual perception felt offended by posting of such crying smiley - Accordingly first petitioner has filed an affidavit on behalf of all petitioners, recording their regret for posting such smileys - Matter should rest here and it will be neither in interest of justice to permit such complaints to stay - When complaint does not disclose any offence as indicated above, petitioners will be put to serious prejudice and hardship in case they are forced to face trial - Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and First Information Report in Crime No. on file of first respondent is quashed - Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

JUDGMENT :

1. The above Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for records pertaining to FIR in Crime No.206 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police and to quash the same.

2. The petitioners in the Criminal Original Petition are accused 1 to 19, 21 to 27, 29 to 31, 33 to 49 as per the complaint.

3. The brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of disposing of this petition are as follows:

3.1. All the petitioners are working in BSNL Department and the second respondent / de-facto complainant is also in BSNL Department as Divisional Engineer (Rural). It is stated that the petitioners as well as the second respondent are all members of an official whatsapp group.

3.2. It is admitted that the official whatsapp group was intended to be used by the members for sharing of any innovative works / ideas for improving the quality of service of BSNL.

3.3. It is admitted that the second respondent has posted the video footage of three customers who have spoken about their grievance about the BSNL coverage. It appears that the petitioners are mainly indoor staff of BSNL whereas the second respondent is an officer engaged as an outdoor staff. Since the conversation uploaded by the second respondent was taken as an act to degrade the indoor staff, the petitioners and few others have posted an emoji, namely, a smiling face with tears. Some of the petitioners felt that the conversation uploaded by the second respondent is likely to de- motivate the executives and is likely to tarnish the image of BSNL, they requested the members of SNEA by sending similar emojis in the whatsapp group to be shared by other members of the group. Following this, the petitioners who are the accused in the complaint have posted the same emoji, a cartoon face with joy but tears in the eyes. Annoyed by this, the second respondent gave a complaint.

3.4. In the complaint, the second respondent has stated that her husband is a practicing Advocate in Tuticorin District for more than 25 years and that she has two children. She further described herself as a Divisional Engineer (Rural) in BSNL. She states in her complaint that she was also inducted as a member of whatsapp group which was intended to share the complaints and deficiencies in the service of BSNL and to rectify them and improve the quality of service. The second respondent further stated in her complaint that as per the instructions of her superiors only, the recorded video of three of BSNL customers in relation to BSNL coverages was uploaded by her in the said whatsapp group. The allegations in the complaint is that the recorded conversation of BSNL customers uploaded by her is wrongly understood by the petitioners as one to degrade their efficiency and that they started retaliating the complainant and did this with an intention to humiliate her by posting the annoying emojis one after another. It is further stated that the accused 1 and 2 and other petitioners have conspired together and posted the smiley faces with tears through whatsapp against the second respondent. Since the meaning of the emoji is laughing till you cry, the second respondent described the posting of crying smiley faces in the whatsapp group as a most annoying thing intended to humiliate the second respondent. In the complaint, she further referred to the further messages sent by some of the petitioners requesting all members to send the same smiley face. It is further stated in the complaint that because of the posting of crying smiley faces against the second respondent, she was put to mental agony and hence, she could not sleep and she was crying all the night on 31.07.2016. In the complaint, the petitioners 1 and 2 were shown as persons who have induced other members to post crying smiley faces with an intention to humiliate the second respondent. The details of posting of such emojis by other petitioners was given in the complaint. A case was registered for offences punishable under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top