Madras High Court
V.Sathiyaraj vs The Sub Inspector Of Police, on 9 July, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
WP Crl. No. 1414 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
WP Crl. No. 1414 of 2025
and
WPMP Crl. Nos. 686 & 687 of 2025
V.Sathiyaraj
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The Sub Inspector of Police,
CCD-I,
Chennai West,
Greater Chennai City Police.
Cr.No.3 of 2025.
2. Singa Tamizhachi
..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the
proceedings in C.C.No.1744 of 2025 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, and quash the same in the said case as
illegal, without jurisdiction, and an abuse of the process of law.
For Petitioner: Mr.K.Suresh Babu
for Mr.M.Balaji
For Respondents: Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side)
for R1
No appearance for R2
__________
Page1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl. No. 1414 of 2025
ORDER
This Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.1744 of 2025 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet,
Chennai.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the second respondent lodged a
complaint, pursuant to which the first respondent registered an FIR in Crime
No.3 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 356(2), 351(3) and 79
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. It is alleged that the second
respondent has been working in the field of journalism for the past 22 years and
is presently serving as the President of the Tamil Nadu Journalists Union, the
Editor of the First Reporter Weekly Magazine and the State President of the
Indian People’s Federation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. While
being so, the petitioner/accused, on 02.10.2024, without the consent of the
second respondent, published her photograph on social media along with
defamatory, abusive and derogatory remarks and the petitioner addressed her in
a disrespectful manner and made insulting references by dragging the wife of
the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu into the social media posts. It is
further alleged that the petitioner had repeatedly uploaded false and defamatory
content against the second respondent on various social media platforms and
__________
Page2 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl. No. 1414 of 2025
Whatsapp groups consisting journalists, editors and medial personnel, thereby
tarnishing her reputation, dignity and long standing social service. It is further
alleged that the petitioner contacted the office bearers of the Union over the
telephone, abused them by using obscene and indecent language and threatened
them with dire consequence. It is further alleged that the petitioner threatened
the wife of one of the office bearers of the Union during a late-night phone call
and also through Whatsapp messages.
3. After completion of the investigation, the first respondent filed a
final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.1744 of 2025 on
the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, for the offences
punishable under Sections 296(b), 79, 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
and Section 67 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no
offence is made out against the petitioner under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023. Even according to the second respondent, the petitioner had only
published her photograph along with derogatory statements. He further
submitted that the petitioner had contacted the office bearers of the Union over
the telephone and threatened them with dire consequences and also abused them
in filthy languages. He also submitted that insofar as the offence under the
Information Technology Act is concerned, Section 78 of the Information
__________
Page3 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl. No. 1414 of 2025
Technology Act specifically mandates that no police officer below the rank of
Inspector of Police shall investigate any offence under the said Act.. However,
in the present case, the investigation was conducted by a Sub-Inspector of
Police. Therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated and liable to be quashed,
since the investigation conducted by the officer not competent under law has
caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and amounts to a miscarriage of
justice.
5. Per contra, the first respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that
the charge sheet has been filed not only for the offence under the Information
Technology Act and also for the offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023. Therefore, the first respondent has got jurisdiction to investigate the case
and file the final report. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly had taken cognizance
against the petitioner for the charges under Sections 296(b), 79, 351(3) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 67 of Information Technology
Amendment Act, 2008.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for
the first respondent. Though notice has been served on the second respondent
and his name is printed in the cause list, none appeared on his behalf either in
person or through pleader. Perused the materials available on record.
__________
Page4 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl. No. 1414 of 2025
7. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner published
photograph of the second respondent on social media along with defamatory,
abusive and derogatory remarks. Thereafter, the petitioner also contacted the
office bearers of the Union over the telephone, abused them in filthy language
and threatened them with dire consequences.
8. A perusal of the materials available on record including the charge
sheet reveals that there is no material to show that the petitioner had published
the photograph of the second respondent along with any defamatory, abusive
and derogatory remarks. Now, the alleged social media posts are no longer
available. A perusal of the photograph allegedly posted by the petitioner is
clear photograph of the second respondent and it does not contain any
defamatory, abusive and derogatory remarks over the second respondent.
Further, even according to the second respondent, the petitioner had only
contacted the office bearers of the Union over the telephone, abused them in
filthy language and threatened them with dire consequence. There is no specific
allegation that the petitioner extended any such threat directly to the second
respondent.
9. In order to attract the offences under Section 294(b) of IPC, there
must be an uttering of words to affect the person who lodged the complaint. In
this regard it is relevant to extract the Section 294(b) of IPC, as follows :-
__________
Page5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl. No. 1414 of 2025“294. Obscene acts and songs —Whoever, to
the annoyance of others— (a) does any obscene act
in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters
any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any
public place, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend
to three months, or with fine, or with both.”
10. Admittedly, there is absolutely no words uttered by the petitioner
as such to constitute the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, there is no
averments and allegations. Further the charges do not show that on hearing the
obscene words, which were allegedly uttered by the petitioner, the witnesses felt
annoyed. No one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in
the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the petitioner
annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under
Section 294(b) of IPC is made out. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment
reported in 1996(1) CTC 470 in the case of K.Jeyaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj &
anr., which held as follows :-
“To prove the offence under Section
294 of IPC mere utterance of obscence
words are not sufficient but there must be a
further proof to establish that it was to the
annoyance of others, which is lacking in the
case.”
__________
Page6 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl. No. 1414 of 2025
The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present case and therefore, the
offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not at all attracted as against the
petitioners.
11. Insofar as the offence under Section 506(i) of I.P.C is concerned, to
attract the offence, threat and intention to cause an alarm are main ingredients.
The third ingredient is that the intention must be to cause any person to do any
act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that
person is legally entitled to do, subsequent to the main ingredients. Whereas in
the case on hand, even according to the case of the prosecution, the alleged
threats issued by the petitioner were only empty threats and they had no effect
on the complainant.
12. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of this Court
made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11030 of 2014 in the case of Abdul Agis Vs. State
through the Inspector of Police, which reads as follows:-
“7.It is seen from the statements recorded under Section
161(3) of Cr.P.C. of the second respondent/ defacto
complainant that it does not contain any obscene words, which
were uttered by the petitioner herein and the entire allegations
are very simple in nature. It is also seen from the statement of
one Uthami, that the petitioner threatened the defacto
complainant with dire consequences when he dashed the
defacto complainant. The entire allegations are trivial in
nature. Further, to attract the offence under Section 506(i) of
I.P.C., there was a threatening only by words. As pointed by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the threat
__________
Page7 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl. No. 1414 of 2025should be a real one and not just a mere word when the petition
uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the
person to whom threat is launched does not feel threatened
actually. Therefore, the offences under Sections 294(b) and
506(i) of I.P.C. are not made out as against the petitioner
herein and also the entire criminal proceedings is clear an
abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this Court is inclined to
quash the entire proceedings.”
13. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the judgement reported in
(1992) SCC Crl. 426 in the case of Bajanlal v. State of Haryana, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has listed out the following category of case in
which the criminal proceedings can be quashed using the inherent jurisdiction
of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:
“102……….
……………….
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with malafide and/or where the
proceedings is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.”
Therefore, the impugned complaint is nothing but clear abuse of process of law
and it cannot be sustained as against the petitioner.
14. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 509 of IPC is
concerned, it is well settled that, to attract the said provision, there must be a
specific act, gesture or word intended to insult the modesty of a woman. A
__________
Page8 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl. No. 1414 of 2025
vague or bald allegation, bereft of specific particulars, is insufficient to sustain a
charge under Section 509 of IPC. On perusal of the entire records, there are no
such allegations in order to insult the modesty of the second respondent.
Further, no authenticated electronic records appears to have been collected and
annexed by the first respondent along with the final report. There is absolutely
no material to demonstrate that the petitioner had posted on social media
containing defamatory or derogatory remarks against the second respondent. In
view of the above, the ingredients of the offence are not made out.
15. Insofar as the offence under Section 67 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000, is concerned, it is relevant to extract the provision under
Section 78 of the Information Technology Act, which reads as follows :
“Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, a police office not below the rank of
Inspector shall investigate any offence under this Act”.
16. Thus, it is clear that it confers exclusive power to investigate the
I.T.Act offences to a police officer not below the rank of Inspector, who is
expected to have certain degree of expertise/knowledge to handle investigation
of a technical offence. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the first respondent,
who is Sub Inspector of Police, completed the investigation and filed a final
report. In view of the bar under Section 78A of the Information Technology
Act, the first respondent is an incompetent authority to conduct investigation.
__________
Page9 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl. No. 1414 of 2025
17. In this regard, the learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu
(Criminal Side) submitted that if any miscarriage of justice done or any
prejudice caused to the accused by the incompetent investigating officer, the
entire proceedings cannot be sustained. However, in the case on hand, the
petitioner failed to establish that any miscarriage of justice done or prejudice
caused to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he relied upon the
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 1955 SCR (1) 1150
in the case of H.N.Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Delhi, wherein it
was held as follows .
“If, therefore, congnizance is in fact taken, on a
police report vitiated by the breach of a mandatory
provision relating to investigation, there can be no
doubt that the result of the trial which follows it
cannot be set aside unless the illegality in the
investigation can be shown to have brought about a
miscarriage of justice. That an affect the competence
and the jurisdiction of the Court for trial is well
settled as appears from the cases in Prabhu V.
Emperor (1) and Lumbhardar Zutshi V. The King (2).
These no doubt relate to the illegality of arrest in the
course of investigation while we are concerned in the
present cases with the illegality with reference to the
machinery for the collection of the evidence. This
distinction may have a bearing on the question of
prejudice or miscarriage of justice, but oth the cases
clearly show that invalidity of the investigation has no
relation to the competence of the Court. We are
therefore, clearly, also, of the opinion that where the
cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the
case has proceeded to termination, the invalidity of
the precedent investigation does not vitiate the result,
unless miscarriage of justice has been caused there.
It doest not follow, however, that the invalidity
of the investigation is to be completely ignored by the
__________
Page10 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl. No. 1414 of 2025
Court during trial. When the breach of such a
mandatory provision is brought to the knowledge of
the Court at a a sufficiently early stae, the Court,
while not declining cognizance, will have to take the
necessary steps to get the illegality cured and the
defect rectified, by ordering such reinvestigation as
the circumstances of an individual case may call for.”
18. It is true that the entire final report is vitiated if any breach of
mandatory provisions relating to investigation. In the case on hand, admittedly
the first respondent is incompetent to investigate in respect of the offence under
the Information Technology Act. The crux of the allegation is against the
petitioner that he posted the photograph of the second respondent on social
media along with defamatory, abusive and derogatory remarks. Further, he also
contacted the office bearers of the second respondent’s Union over telephone
and threatened them with dire consequences by using obscene words and also
sent Whatsapp messages. In order to investigate of such allegations, the
Inspector of Police is competent authority to investigate, since the Inspector of
Police expected to have certain degree of expertise/knowledge to handle
investigation of a technical offence. Therefore, there is miscarriage of justice
and serious prejudice caused to the petitioner. Hence, the entire investigation
done by the first respondent is vitiated and liable to be quashed.
__________
Page11 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl. No. 1414 of 2025
19. In view of the above, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1744 of
20025 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chenani, is
hereby quashed and the Writ Petition (Criminal) stands allowed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
09-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
LPP
To
1.The Sub Inspector of Police,
CCD-I,
Chennai West,
Greater Chennai City Police.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
__________
Page12 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP Crl. No. 1414 of 2025
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
LPP
WP Crl. No. 1414 of 2025
and
WPMP Crl. Nos. 686 & 687 of 2025
09-07-2026
__________
Page13 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
