ANAGH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Miscellaneous Case raises the question of procedural significance: Whether a private complaint can be returned by a Magistrate on the ground that the postal address of the accused has not been furnished?

(2.) The petitioner filed a complaint before the Court of the Judicial First-Class MagistrateII, Thrissur, against the 3rd respondent alleging her to have committed the offences under Ss. 356(2), 351, 61 and 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for brevity, 'BNS') and Sec. 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, 'IT Act').

(3.) The gravamen of the petitioner's case in the complaint is that he is the Joint Secretary of a Non- Governmental Organisation. On 23/6/2025, the 3 rd respondent, through a social media thread, posted false, malicious and defamatory allegations against the petitioner, disseminated defamatory materials through WhatsApp messages to the President of the petitioner's organisation and third parties, inflicting reputational harm and mental agony to the petitioner, and continues to repeatedly post unsubstantiated and malicious comments against the petitioner on Facebook, leading to unknown persons targeting the petitioner online. Although the petitioner issued a legal notice to the 3rd respondent via her WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram accounts, the 3rd respondent has not responded; instead, she continues to post sweeping, baseless, and defamatory allegations against the petitioner on social media. As the acts of the 3 rd respondent attract the above offences, the petitioner was constrained to file the complaint. However, by Annexure A3 order, the learned Magistrate has returned the complaint on the sole ground that the postal address of the 3 rd respondent has not been furnished. The order returning the complaint is ex facie erroneous and unjustifiable.