ORDER :

G.R. Swaminathan, J.

1. The petitioner is figuring as the second accused in C.C. No. 211 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Srivilliputhur. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

The daughter of the defacto complainant had given a criminal case against one Palraj before the All Women Police Station, Srivilliputhur for the offences under Sections 417 and 376 of IPC. Palraj was arrested. While publishing a news report on this, the accused had disclosed the identity of the victim. Hence, the accused have committed the offence under Section 228A of IPC. The first accused in the case is the editor of the news daily. The petitioner herein was implicated as the second accused as it was he who as reporter filed the news report. To quash the impugned proceedings in so far as he is concerned, this petition has been filed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that no case has been made out for quashing the impugned proceedings and he prayed for dismissal of this petition. Though the de-facto complainant has been served and his name is also printed in the cause list, he has not chosen to enter appearance.

3. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. Section 228A of IPC was inserted by Central Act 43 of 1983 w.e.f. 25.12.1983 to penalise disclosure of identity of victims of certain offences. Section 228 A(1) of IPC is as follows:

"Whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB or section 376E is alleged or found to have been committed (hereafter in this section referred to as the victim) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again stressed the need to maintain the confidentiality of the identity of the victim in sexual offences. Courts have been cautioned against mentioning the names of the victims in their orders and proceedings. Some of the leading decisions pertaining to Section 228 A of IPC are Bhupinder Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003) 8 SCC 551, Nipun Saxena and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2019) 2 SCC 703, X vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 598 and State of Punjab vs. Ramdev Singh (2004) 1 SCC 421.

4. In this case, the identity of the victim was disclosed and as such Section 228 A of IPC got attracted. But the question is whether the petitioner can be prosecuted for the offence. It is settled law that strict interpretation is required to be given to penal statutes (Aparna A. Shah vs. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 71). As per Section 228 A of IPC, whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known of the identity of the victim referred to in the provision commits the offence. When it comes to a registered newspaper, the expression "publisher" means the publisher of a newspaper (Rule 2 of the Registration of Newspapers (Central) Rules, 1956). Section 5(2) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 r/w. Rule 3 of the Registration of Newspapers (Central) Rules, 1956 mandates the making of following declaration in Form-I:

5. Nowhere the prosecution has alleged that the name of the petitioner herein has been mentioned in Form-I either as publisher or printer. The petitioner is only a reporter of the news daily in question. He is not its printer or publisher. When the penal provision envisages prosecution of the printer or publisher, the petitioner who does not fall under either of the categories cannot be made to face criminal trial. We are not concerned with a post in social media. The