Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 22695
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Dr Justice G. JAYACHANDRAN
GANESHAN – Appellant
Versus
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.875 of 2023
Mr.A.S.Aswin Prasanna, Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
A complainant must have locus standi to file a defamation case, and electronic evidence must be collected in accordance with legal standards.
Headnote:
Defamation - Complaint - IPC Sections 153, 504, 505(1)(b) and IT Act Section 67 - The court quashed the complaint due to lack of locus standi and failure to properly collect electronic evidence.
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was filed alleging defamation through memes against a politician, but the petitioner argued that the complainant had no standing as the memes targeted someone else and lacked evidence linking them to the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant did not have the locus to file the complaint and that the prosecution failed to properly collect and present electronic evidence as required by law.
Issues: Whether the complainant had the standing to file the complaint and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of proper evidence collection, particularly for electronic documents, and the requirement of locus standi for filing defamation complaints.
Final Decision: The complaint was quashed and the criminal original petition was allowed.
O R D E R
On the complaint given by one Kannapiran, the respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.1510 of 2020 on 15.10.2020 for the offences under Sections 153, 504, 505(1)(b) of I.P.C and Section 67 of Information Technology Act.
2. The complaint is against this petitioner and four others. In the complaint, it is stated that when the complainant, an active member of AIADMK party was discussing with his partyman in a sweet stall, he received a memes in his facebook account alleging that the AIADMK M.L.A Thiru.Gunasekaran has spent Rs.7.70 lakhs for removing the hand pump and installing electrical motor pump and criticising spending Rs.7.7 lakhs for a water tank and spending public money for conversion of hard water to soft drinking water. A defamatory message spread through the Facebook account by way of memes, hence final report filed by the respondent police and same taken on file by Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruppur in C.C.No.213 of 2021.
3. Challenging the final report on the ground that the complainant Kannapiran alleging receipt of memes which is in defamatory nature, has no locus to file the complaint since the memes was not targeted the complainant but against one Thiru.Gunasekaran. M.L.A, Tirupur South Constituency. Furthermore, the content of the memes does not attract any of the offences for which cognizance taken.
4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners further state that even assuming the content of the memes attracts any of the offence stated, there is no evidence to establish nexus between the memes and the accused person.
5. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the 1st respondent states that the statement of witnesses recorded in the course of the investigation and the content of the memes would disclose the commission of offences punishable under Section 153, 504 and 505(1)(b) of I.P.C and Section 67 of Information Technology Act.6. Perusal of the record relied by the prosecution shows that except statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and the transcript of memes, the prosecution relies on electronic document. However, the electronic document namely, memes not been collected in the manner known to law. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the 1st respondent shows the certificate alleged to have been given by Mr.Kannapiran that he has taken a screenshot of the offending memes in his cellphone and took print out from the party computer. It is unfortunate that Investigating Officer has not understood the significance of a certified copy under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, to vouchsafe a electronic document relied as evidence in the Court of law. The Facebook message which alleged to have been certified by Mr.Kannapiran is a printout taken from the party office. The said computer is not under the control or use of said Mr.Kannapiran. The cellphone in which the screenshot taken is a electronic device which should have been the source for the prosecution for introducing the electronic document in the course of trial. The person who is in possession and control of the cellphone in which the screenshot taken should have given the certificate and the details about the cellphone. However, the certificate alleged to have been given by Mr.Kannapiran does not carry any such information. That apart, as pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Investigating Officer in this case has not collected any details about the Facebook account of the accused or Twitter account as mentioned in 65-B certificate. There is a grave contradiction in the case of the prosecution whether the offending memes was forwarded from the Facebook account or Twitter account.7. For the said reason, the complaint in C.C.No.213 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur stands quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
