The prosecution must prove the accused's dishonest intention in creating infringing electronic records to establish culpability under forgery provisions of IPC.

ORDER

Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2025

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.188/2018 pending before the Court of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram (‘Trial Court’, in short). The case arises from Crime No.1508/2016 registered by the Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 469 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘ IPC ’).

2. The prosecution's case, in essence, is as follows:

On 27.03.2010, the Special Private Secretary of the de facto complainant (2^nd respondent – former Minister for Health and Social Welfare, Government of Kerala) had submitted a complaint to the Director General of Police, Kerala, alleging that some miscreants had registered a domain under the name ‘sreemathiteacher.com’ and had published derogatory comments against the 2^nd respondent. The miscreants had provided video links for downloading the speeches of the 2^nd respondent from other websites. Using another person’s name for registering the URL address and using the personal caricature of the 2^nd respondent proves the mala fide intention. The complaint was forwarded to the Office of the Circle Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, who registered Crime No.8/2010 under Section 469 of IPC and Section 66A (a) and (b) of the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008 (for short, ‘IT Act’). During the course of the investigation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by judgment dated 24.03.2015 inShreya Singhal v. Union of India [2015 KHC 4230], struck down Section 66A of the IT Act and Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act as unconstitutional. Consequently, the Cyber Crime Police transferred the investigation to the present Investigating Officer as per the orders of the Inspector of Police. Accordingly, the present crime has been registered against the petitioner.

3. I have heard Sri. P. Rahul, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Seetha S, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Sri. P. Rahul contends that, even if the allegations in Annexure A First Information Report and Annexure B Final Report are taken on their face value, the same will not attract the offence under Section 469 of IPC . According to him, in addition to proving that the petitioner made the electronic record, the prosecution has to also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner created the electronic record with a dishonest intention, knowing that it does not belong to him and without the authority of the person in whose name it was made. The learned counsel submits that a reading of Annexures A and B substantiates that there are no materials to prove that the petitioner had created the electronic record with a dishonest intention to impersonate the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, even if the petitioner undergoes the ordeal of the trial, there is no likelihood of the petitioner being convicted. The learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inMohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another [2009 KHC 1009] and the decisions of this Court in Damodara Panicker and Another v. State of Kerala and Another [2019 (3) KHC 514] andManmohan Shenoy D and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2019 (4) KHC 482] , to bolster his contentions. He urges that Annexures A and B may be quashed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the Crl. M.C. She draws the attention of this Court to the specific allegations in the First Information Report, the First Information Statement, the Final Report and the Case Diary. She argues that the above materials, particularly the Mahazar, establish that the petitioner had created the website with a dishonest and malicious intention by uploading the vi