BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
I. Linga Bhaskar & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
The State through the Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 3110 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos. 2366 and 6773 of 2017
Decided On : 05-06-2018
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 - Section 4 - Caste and Scheduled Tribes Amendment Act, 2015 - Section 3 - Information Technology Act - Section 67 - Innovative Works - It is admitted that official what sapp group was intended to be used by members for sharing of any innovative works / ideas for improving quality of service of BSNL - It is admitted that second respondent has posted video footage of three customers who have spoken about their grievance about BSNL coverage - It appears that petitioners are mainly indoor staff of BSNL whereas second respondent is an officer engaged as an outdoor staff - Since conversation uploaded by second respondent was taken as an act to degrade indoor staff petitioners and few others have posted an emoji namely a smiling face with tears - Some of petitioners felt that conversation uploaded by second respondent is likely to de-motivate executives and is likely to tarnish image of BSNL they requested members of SNEA by sending similar emojis in what sapp group to be shared by other members of group– Held, When no cognizable offence is found on face of complaint this Court is of view that First information report is liable to be quashed - In case on hand petitioners and second respondent are members of what sapp 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 - Every person has got indefeasible right to express what he feels - petitioners who are working as executives and staff of BSNL along with second respondent ought not to have indulged in posting such emoji in interest of BSNL since what sapp group is formed to promote team spirit - Such complaints by second respondent who is working as a divisional engineer will pave way for other complications and friction among members which will be detriment to interest of BSNL - This 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 – Order Accordingly.
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 of Har
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.