Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice C.S. Dias, has held that a Magistrate cannot return a private complaint solely on the ground that the postal address of the accused has not been furnished. The case arose from a complaint filed before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur, alleging that the accused had circulated false and defamatory content against the complainant through social media platforms. The Court directed the Magistrate to accept the complaint and issue process through the accused's disclosed electronic communication addresses.

The petitioner filed a private complaint before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate–II, Thrissur, alleging that the third respondent committed offences punishable under Sections 356(2), 351, 61 and 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complaint stated that the petitioner, a Joint Secretary of a Non-Governmental Organisation, was subjected to allegedly false and defamatory posts published by the third respondent through social media platforms. It was alleged that the third respondent disseminated defamatory materials through WhatsApp messages to members of the petitioner’s organisation and continued to post allegations on Facebook, resulting in reputational harm and mental agony.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Nationwide Expansion And Reform Of Open Correctional Institutions, Constitutes High-Powered Committee To Frame Common Minimum Standards

The petitioner issued a legal notice through WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram, but received no response. The Magistrate returned the complaint on the ground that the postal address of the third respondent was not furnished. The petitioner challenged this action, contending that neither the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita nor the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita mandates disclosure of the accused’s postal address as a precondition to entertain a complaint, and that electronic communication details were available.

The Court recorded that the matter raised the question: “Whether a private complaint can be returned by a Magistrate on the ground that the postal address of the accused has not been furnished?”

Referring to Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, the Court observed: “a complaint can be filed against a known or an unknown person who has committed an offence. So, if the accused is an unknown person, then there is no question of furnishing his postal address.” It further stated that “Neither definition requires that the offence be alleged against an identified individual at the threshold stage.”

On the statutory scheme, the Court noted: “BNSS does not stipulate any particular format for filing a complaint… Nowhere does it elevate the furnishing of a postal address as a condition precedent for filing a complaint.” It added that “furnishing the name or postal address of the accused is not a condition precedent to the presentation or acceptance of a complaint on file.”

Regarding electronic process, the Court observed: “The above provisions enable summons to be issued and served by electronic communication.” It also recorded that the Kerala Electronic Processes (Issuance, Service and Execution) Rules, 2025 permit process through disclosed electronic communication addresses.

Addressing digital offences, the Court stated: “In offences involving cyberspace, the offenders often operate through fake or anonymous digital identities.” It continued: “In such cases, insisting on disclosure of a postal address at the threshold stage would deny access to justice, render victims remediless, encourage deliberate anonymity and frustrate criminal law enforcement.”

The Court recorded: “To return a complaint solely for want of a postal address is to subordinate substantive justice to procedural rigidity.” It concluded that “the order returning the complaint for want of the accused's postal address is ex facie erroneous and unsustainable in law.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court Grants Bail to Alleged LTTE Operative Accused of Drug Trafficking and Arms Smuggling to Fund Terror and Wage War Against Sri Lanka After Four Years in NIA Custody

The Court ordered: “In the above conspectus, I allow the Crl. M.C. by answering the question that a complaint cannot be returned for the want of a postal address. Accordingly, I set aside the order dated 14.08.2025, and direct the learned Magistrate to accept the complaint on file and issue a process to the 3rd respondent/accused in the disclosed electronic communication address mentioned in the complaint. In the event of the 3rd respondent’s failure to respond to the process, steps shall be taken in accordance with the BNSS and the above-referred Rules.” Additionally, it directed: “Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter, the Registrar (District Judiciary) is directed to place the matter before the competent authority of this Court to examine whether suitable amendments to the Criminal Rules of Practice are warranted to deal with complaints against cyber offences.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Kum. Gayathri Muraleedharan, Smt. Archana B., Shri. Ajin K. Kuriakose, Smt. Sruthilakshmi Shaji

For the Respondents: Shri. C.S. Hrithwik, Senior Public Prosecutor; Adv. Kum. S. Krishna

Case Title: Anagh v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:16819
Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 8709 of 2025
Bench: Justice C.S. Dias