Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath quashed the final police report and all further proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, against two individuals accused of posting derogatory messages in a WhatsApp group. The Court held that the allegations, even if accepted in full, did not attract the ingredients of offences under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act and Section 43 read with Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The case originated from Crime No. 211/2019 of Medical College Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, in which the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3. The police registered the case following a complaint made by the Chairman of the SAT Health Education Society (SATHHESH), an educational society functioning in the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint alleged that the petitioners, along with the first accused, had posted derogatory and insulting messages in a WhatsApp group named “SATHHES PLANET”, directed at the Chief Minister and other Ministers of Kerala.

Also Read: Nine Years In Jail Without Proof Beyond Doubt | Supreme Court Slams Conviction Based On 'Misreading Of Evidence' And 'Ignored Striking Features' | Acquits All Eleven Accused In Triple Murder

The members of SATHHESH were all part of the said WhatsApp group. The 1st accused was the administrator of the group, while the petitioners and the second respondent (defacto complainant) were group members. Based on the complaint, the police initially registered a case alleging commission of an offence under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer included Section 43 read with Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in the final report. The case was taken on file as C.C. No. 281 of 2019 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

According to the prosecution, the petitioners repeatedly posted content in the WhatsApp group that was derogatory towards the state leadership. The final report cited six witnesses, including four group members (CWs 1 to 4) and two police officials (CWs 5 and 6). Statements were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC.

The petitioners approached the High Court invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking to quash the final report and all subsequent proceedings. The petitioners argued that the allegations made, even if taken at face value, did not constitute any criminal offence under the sections invoked.

During the hearing, the petitioners were represented by their counsel Sri. Arun B. Varghese, while the second respondent was represented by Sri. Salim V.S. and Smt. K.S. Haseena. The State was represented by Sri. Sangeetha Raj N.R., Public Prosecutor.

The petitioners maintained that no offence was made out and the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. The respondents, opposing the petition, argued that the allegations were serious in nature and required to be examined in a full-fledged trial. It was also submitted that the truth or falsity of the allegations was a matter of evidence and could not be adjudicated at the stage of quashing.

The Court considered the submissions and examined the ingredients of the offences charged. It stated in italics, “The petitioners do not dispute the allegation that they had posted messages concerning the Kerala Chief Minister and other Ministers in the WhatsApp group. Their case is that by posting so, no offence is attracted.”

Referring to Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, the Court stated: “A reading of the above provision makes it clear that to attract the offence under Section 120(o) of the KP Act, a person should cause a nuisance of himself to any other person through a means of communication.” The Court further recorded: “The allegations in the FIR do not indicate that the petitioner caused a nuisance of himself to any other person by posting the impugned messages in the WhatsApp group.”

Examining the witness statements, the Court observed: “A perusal of the said statements would show that none of them has a case that the posting of messages or forwarding of messages by the petitioners has caused nuisance to the complainant or any other person.” The Court also stated: “Neither in the FIR, nor in the statement of the witnesses, nor in the final report, is there any specific assertion that the petitioners caused any nuisance to the complainant or any other person.”

Addressing the applicability of Section 43 read with Section 66 of the IT Act, the Court observed: “Section 43 of the IT Act deals with penalties and compensation for damage to computer systems, etc. This section basically provides for civil liability.” The Court further explained: “Section 66, on the other hand, addresses criminal liability, specifying punishment for those who commit offences described in Section 43 with dishonest or fraudulent intent.”

Analyzing the acts enumerated in Section 43, the Court noted: “To trigger a penalty under Section 43 of the IT Act, accessing, downloading, introducing virus, damaging the computer, computer system or network data, creating disruption, denying access, destroying or deleting the information, stealing, concealing or altering the computer source code by a person without permission of the owner in charge of the computer, computer system or computer network must be established.”

The Court then concluded: “I fail to understand how Section 43 read with Section 66 of the IT Act is attracted in this case.” It also observed: “There is absolutely no allegation that the petitioners engaged in any of the acts outlined in Section 43.”

Summarising its finding, the Court recorded: “The upshot of the above discussion is that even if the entire allegations in Annexure A1 final report together with the materials collected during investigation which form part of the final report are believed in its entirety, no offence under Section 120(o) of the KP Act or Section 43 r/w 66 of IT Act is made out against the petitioners.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Finds No Reasonable Cause For Delay | Upholds Trial Court’s Refusal To Accept Additional Documents At Evidence Stage In Commercial Suit

The High Court issued the following final direction:

“For the aforementioned reasons, no useful purpose will be served by allowing the criminal prosecution against the petitioners to continue and hence, Annexure A1 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No. 281 of 2019 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram against the petitioners are hereby quashed.”

Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 482 CrPC was allowed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Arun B. Varghese, Advocate; Sri. R. Sanjay Sankar, Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri. Salim V.S., Advocate; Smt. K.S. Haseena, Advocate; Sri. Sangeetha Raj N.R., Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Dipin Vidyadharan & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:37200

Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 4741 of 2019

Bench: Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath

[Read/Download order]