IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

63 Moons Technologies Limited, Represented by its Authorized Signatory, D.John Dheepak, having its registered office at Shakti Tower -II, 4^th Floor, J-766, Anna Salai, Thousand Lights, Chennai – 600 002. ... Petitioner Vs.

1. Slowform Holdings Limited, Represented by its Director Ashish Kumar Mishra, Having its registered office at:

86-90, Paul Street, London, England, EC2A 4NE.

2. Slowform Media Private Limited, Represented by its Director Priya Bubna, Having its registered office at:

E-210, Floor 2, H-16, MHADA Buildings, Ion Transit Camp Road, Pratiksha Nagar, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India – 400 022.

3. Ashish K Mishra

4. Priya Bubna

5. Harveen Ahluwalia

6. Surendar Thirumoorthy

7. Muskaan Gupta ... Respondents P RAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C., to set aside the return docket order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the learned 14^th Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai and consequently direct the learned 14^th Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, to number and take cognizance of the complaint bearing C.C.SR.No.48580 of 2025 filed by the petitioner/complainant herein under Sections 222 r/w 223 of the BNSS and dispose the same expeditiously.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, Senior Advocate Assisted by, Mr.Vaibhav R Venkatesh

O R D E R

The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the docket order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the learned 14^th Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, returning the petitioner’s complaint bearing C.C.SR.No.48580 of 2025 and to direct the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the same and dispose of it expeditiously.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

2.1. The petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 222 r/w

223 of the BNSS against the respondents for commission of offences under Sections 356(1), 356(2) and 356(3) of the BNS, in respect of the publication of a defamatory article in the public domain on the website of the Morning Context.

2.2. The learned Magistrate returned the complaint on

31.10.2025 stating as follows:

“In the Morning Context Indian edition, the fair usage policy mentions about the jurisdiction as follows:

“Any dispute, controversy, or claim arising out of or relating to these terms, your use of the TMC Platforms, or the Content, shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. You hereby irrevocably consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts and waive any objection to the laying of venue in such courts”

Hence this complaint is to be field within the proper jurisdictional court. Hence returned.”

2.3. Thereafter, when the petitioner/complainant re-presented the complaint on 03.11.2025, it was adjourned on 10.11.2025 and on 10.11.2025, the complaint was once again returned with the endorsement “On the perusal of the case papers it is found that this complaint is to be filed before the proper jurisdiction court. Hence returned.” Challenging the said return order, the present petition has been filed.

3. The submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner are as follows:-

3.1. The Morning Context is a digital news platform and though it has its office at Mumbai, the defamatory article was published world wide and was viewed by several persons, including shareholders of the petitioner/complainant company. Consequently, the reputation of the petitioner company has been gravely damaged by such publication.

3.2. The petitioner/complainant has its office at Chennai and therefore, the Courts within Chennai have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

3.3. The fair usage policy relied upon by the accused is not applicable to criminal proceedings and can be applied only in respect of contractual and copyright matters. Admittedly, the office of the accused is situated at Mumbai and the fair usage policy provides f