'IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.11.2023 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.OP.No.22563 of 2021 and Crl.MP.No.12267 of 2021 Yohann J.Setna ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State of Tamilnadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, Chennai City Police Station, Central Crime Branch, Chennai

2.Vivek Ponnusamy ... Respondents PRAYER Criminal original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for records in CC.No.3365 of 2020 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai herein and to quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Nicul Anand for M/s.Geetha Vijay Anand For Respondents For R1 : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate(Crl.side)

For R2 : No appearance

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.3365 of 2020 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 465 and 469 of IPC as against the petitioner.

2. The second respondent lodged complaint alleging that he had assisted as a co-driver in Targa rallies held in Australia and participated in the rally of Coimbatore part of Indian Rally Championship from 19^th to 21^st July 2013. The entire rally vedio duration is 60 minutes. The video camera installed inside the car driven by one, Samir Thapar and co-driven by the complainant. The said Samir Thapar uploaded the entire 60 minutes video on 04.08.2013 by sharing in a website and you tube. On 09.08.2013, the second respondent noticed that a video titled as “The Lighter Side of Rallying” posted on you tube under the user name of 'Yohan Setna'. He found that the accused working as Sporting Manager for JA Motorsport has digitally altered, forged and edited the 60 minutes video into a 3.5 minutes video and had uploaded the said video into video sharing website. He also shared the video from the face book page of JA Motorsport by lining the 3.5 minutes video in you tube having remark 'This is a funniest onboard rally video I have ever seen'. It was seen by nearly four lakhs people all around globe and most of the viewers had posted hostile comments ridiculing the expertise of the co-driver. It is malicious and with the malafide intention and also to defame him as a co driver. Therefore, he had lost his name and reputation in the car rally community in India and abroad. Therefore, he incurred heavy loss and not participating as co driver in the car rally. Hence, the complaint. On receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in crime No.330 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 465, 469 & 500 of IPC and Section 66A of Information Technology Act on 23.08.2013. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance for the offence under Sections

465 & 469 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even according to the second respondent, it is a funny video and it was edited one. It was not morphing or videographed one. It was edited from the original video and both the videos were very much available in the you tube at the time of occurrence. Therefore, no offence is made out for forgery. He also had given illustration like 'funny video'. The first respondent filed final report only on 05.10.2020 i.e. after period of seven years from the date of registration of FIR. Therefore, it is barred by limitation. The main person who uploaded the video was not examined by the prosecution to support the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the second respondent caused notice and on receipt of the same, the petitioner replied by his reply dated 16.08.2013. He categorically stated that he never morphed any videograph and he edited the original video into 3.5 minutes, that too without any malicious intention and posted the same. However, they also sought for unconditional apology and immediately removed from the social media.

4. Per contra, the learne