Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Madras at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice K. Murali Shankar allowed a criminal revision petition and set aside an order of the Judicial Magistrate Court that had accepted a police final report closing an investigation as undetected. The court directed the respondent police to proceed with the investigation and complete it within three months from receipt of the order. The decision came after the court found that the investigation had been halted prematurely and without exhausting available avenues to obtain relevant information.

The matter originated from a complaint lodged with the East Police Station, Kovilpatti, later redirected to the Cyber Crime Police Station, Thoothukudi. The complaint alleged that an individual named Sathish Kumar posted a photograph on Facebook on 19 August 2022 depicting girls bathing nude in a pool, with Lord Krishna viewing from a tree. The image was accompanied by two comments in Tamil. The complainant alleged that the post defamed Hindu gods, harmed the image of Hindu women, and could potentially cause law and order problems and promote enmity between groups on religious grounds.

Also Read: “Directions in Paragraphs 25 and 26 Are Deleted”: Supreme Court Recalls Order Removing Allahabad HC Judge From Criminal Jurisdiction After CJI’s Request

An FIR was registered on 26 August 2022 in Crime No.41 of 2022 under Sections 298, 504, 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, against an unknown person. The respondent police, after investigation, filed a final report on 25 February 2025 (submitted on 12 March 2025) classifying the matter as undetected.

The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thoothukudi, issued a notice to the complainant for objections. While the court record for 19 March 2025 noted that the complainant appeared through counsel and raised objections, the Magistrate's order stated that the complainant had not appeared or objected. The Magistrate accepted the final report, closed the case, and granted liberty to file a private complaint.

The petitioner challenged the closure, arguing that the police had not conducted a thorough investigation and had failed to follow up on leads from the Facebook account, which contained personal details of the alleged offender.

The court referred to the Full Bench decision in Chinnathambi @ Subramani v. State, 2017 Crl LJ 2143, which clarified that an "undetectable" report does not terminate an investigation and is akin to an interim report, not a final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The court recorded: "Though the respondent police has filed the final report as undetected, as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Full Bench, the same does not terminate the investigation and the investigation is construed to be in progress."

The court noted discrepancies between the Magistrate’s order and the daily court status, which showed that objections had been raised. It found that the Magistrate had neither referred to nor considered those objections before closing the case.

On the police investigation, the court recorded that requests for account details were sent to Facebook, which refused to provide information without a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request or letter rogatory. The court observed: "It is not the case of the prosecution that after the receipt of the said reply... they have taken further action... to get the information."

Also Read: Pregnancy Care Not An Extraordinary Ground | Kerala High Court Rejects Convict’s Plea For Emergency Parole To Assist Wife

The bench criticised the investigation as mechanical, noting that publicly available details from the Facebook page were not verified. It further stated: "Depicting Hindu Gods in a disrespectful manner, intentionally hurting the sentiments of millions, cannot be justified. Such actions have the potential to spark enmity, religious outrage, social disorder, and undermine communal harmony."

Allowing the criminal revision case, the court set aside the referred charge sheet and the Magistrate’s order in R.C.S.No.400 of 2025 dated 19 March 2025. The court directed: "The respondent police is directed to proceed with the investigation and complete the same and file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Saravanan, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mrs. M. Aasha, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

Case Title: P. Paramasivan v. Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Thoothukudi

Case Number: Crl.R.C.(MD) No.526 of 2025

Bench: Justice K. Murali Shankar