Safiya Malik

The Madras High Court Single Bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri quashed a criminal case registered against a woman for posting a comment on a social media video depicting minor girls in school uniform consuming liquor, wherein she expressed her views on the state government's administration. The court found that none of the alleged offences were established against her, noting that she had merely commented on a video shared by a third party, rather than sharing it herself, and that the complaint appeared to have been filed with political motivation by a member of a rival party.

The Criminal Original Petition was filed seeking to call for the records relating to an FIR registered in Crime No.12/2024 and to quash the same. The petitioner, a woman, was accused of offences under Sections 504, 505(1)(b), 153 IPC, Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2008, and Sections 74 and 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, for commenting on a shared social media post.

Also Read: Motor Accident | Supreme Court Restores 'Pay And Recover' Principle Against Insurer Where Deceased Travelled As Gratuitous Passenger In Goods Vehicle

According to the prosecution, the de-facto complainant, a District Information Technology Coordinator and Municipal Councilor, noticed that the petitioner had commented on a video showing three minor girls in school uniform holding liquor bottles. Based on the complaint, the FIR was registered. The petitioner contended that she had merely commented on a post shared by a third party and sought quashing of the FIR. The Government Advocate argued that the video displayed the faces of minor girls and that sharing such content violated their privacy, attracting the alleged offences.

The Court recorded, “Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, strictly prohibits disclosing the identity of a child involved in legal proceedings whether as a victim, witness, or in conflict with the law across all media forms.” It further noted, “No report in any newspaper, magazine, or audio-visual media can disclose any information that could reveal the identity of the child.”

The Court stated, “In the said provision, it has been mandated that while dealing with any investigation, inquiry or judicial procedure, the identity of minor children involved should not be disclosed.” It then observed, “However, in the instant case, the petitioner has nothing to do with any inquiry or investigation or judicial procedure.”

With respect to Section 77 of the Act, the Court stated, “Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, deals with respect to giving intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug or psychotropic substance to a child.” It recorded, “However, in the instant case, it is not the petitioner who had given intoxicating liquor, narcotic drug, intoxicating liquor to the minor girls.”

Regarding the IT Act offence, the Court observed, “As far as the offences under Section 66E of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, it is with respect to invasion of privacy of persons in visual media.” It added, “However, it is not the petitioner who had shared the video of the minor children but the petitioner is the one who had commented on a video which was shared by some third party.”

On the IPC offences, the Court stated, “Obviously, neither alarm nor any disturbance is caused to the public and no complaint has been obtained from any of the public, in this regard except the defacto complainant who is none other than a member of one political party, who had lodged a complaint with political vindication against the petitioner who appeared to be a supporter of another political party.” It concluded, “Therefore, the offenses under Sections 504, 505(1)(b), 153 of IPC, are not made out.”

Also Read: Madras High Court Directs Bar Council Of India To Process Law Colleges' Applications For Additional Intake Within Three Weeks, Rejects Need-Basis Bar In Absence Of Empirical Data

The Court directed, “Hence, offences under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, are hereby quashed. Hence the offence under Section 66E of the IT Act will also not be made out and the same is quashed. Accordingly, the impugned first information report in Crime No.12 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police is quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. R.C. Paul Kanagaraj, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Case Title: Sowdhamani v. The Inspector of Police & Anr.
Case Number: CRL OP (MD) No.13858 of 2024
Bench: Justice L. Victoria Gowri