Madras High Court: The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), challenging the Judicial Magistrate’s order that accepted the final report as ‘undetected’ and closed the case related to a Facebook post containing insulting language and an image of Lord Krishna. A Single Judge Bench of K. Murali Shankar, J., held that an undetected report was merely an interim report that did not terminate investigation. The Court set aside the Magistrate’s order and directed the police to complete the investigation within three months.
Background:
The petitioner originally lodged a complaint alleging that a person posted an allegedly disrespectful photo along with derogatory comments about Lord Krishna on 19-08-2022 through his Facebook ID. The petitioner claimed that he was deeply hurt by the misrepresented photo, which caused him significant mental anguish.
It was further alleged that the person posted the photo and comments with intention of defaming Hindu Gods and damaging the image of Hindu women and potentially creating a law and order problem and promoting enmity between different groups on religious grounds.
An FIR was registered under Sections 298, 504 and 505(2) of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’). The police sought user details from Facebook (Meta Platforms, Inc.), but Meta refused, citing that a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request or letter rogatory was required under applicable law and their terms of service, and on that ground, they refused to furnish the information sought for. In 2025, the police, after completing the investigation, filed a final report before the Court concerned as undetected.
The petitioner objected before the Magistrate, but the Court recorded that no objections were raised and closed the case, giving liberty to the petitioner to file a private complaint. The petitioner after being aggrieved by the impugned order, filed a criminal revision.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that depicting Hindu Gods in a disrespectful manner, intentionally hurting the sentiments of millions, could not be justified since such actions had the potential to spark enmity, religious outrage, social disorder, and undermine communal harmony. The Court observed that given the deep-rooted respect for religious symbols and deities, disrespect could lead to social unrest and hurt a large section of society, therefore, it was crucial to approach such depictions with sensitivity and the Government must ensure that freedom of expression did not translate into hurting religious feelings.
The Court noted that the police had limited its investigation to merely requesting information from Facebook authorities, without undertaking further investigation. It was further observed that the alleged person’s Facebook page contained personal details, including educational background, work history, residence, and a photograph and the prosecution had not verified the accuracy of these details or provided any explanation for not doing so. The Court further pointed out that while the Investigating Officer identified the post’s potential to create law and order issues and disturb communal harmony, the investigation was not pursued diligently, and the final report appears to have been filed mechanically.
The Court referred to Chinnathambi v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 670, wherein it was held that, if the Investigating Officer, was unable to detect the crime, he would submit a report to the Magistrate stating that the crime was “undetectable” but it could not be construed that the investigation had been completed. If once the investigation is completed, then only a report could be filed under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and a report of this kind where the Police Officer stated that the crime was undetectable, did not terminate the investigation and thus, the investigation was construed to be in progress.
The Court clarified that the depiction and comments clearly exceeded acceptable limits, as they had the potential to offend religious sentiments and incite social unrest. The Court highlighted that despite the seriousness of the allegations, the police handled the case casually, halted the investigation, and closed it as ‘undetected’.
The Court, therefore set aside both the charge sheet and the Magistrate’s order, and directed the police to resume and complete the investigation, filing a final report within three months from the receipt of the order.
[P. Paramasivan v. Inspector of Police, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 4604, decided on 04-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: S. Saravanan
For the Respondents: M. Aasha, Government Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
