We are all familiar with the rampant menace of impersonation on various platforms and direct messages to our friends from impostors asking for money. Most social media users ignore this offence which attracts Section 319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act. Some take the time and effort to file cyber-crime complaints in the hope that the perpetrators are not emboldened by inaction.
In the absence of proper authentication of identity to open a social media account, these unknown culprits are seldom ever apprehended even after registration of a First Information Report.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in P. Paramasivan Vs Inspector of Police (2025) had dealt with a social media issue. The police had sent letters to the platform seeking the phone number, Email ID, account verification details, sign up details and IP Logs of the accounts under investigation. However, the social media site refused to furnish any information on the ground that a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request or Letter Rogatory was required for production of the information sought.
Often, the police stop with these formal requests to social media sites to furnish information and do not undertake further investigation. The cases are then categorised as ‘undetected’. A Referred Charge Sheet (RCS) is filed under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (Section 173 CrPC) before the Magistrate, as a precursor to closure of the case.
In a seminal Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court comprising Justice N.Nagamuthu, Justice P.N. Prakash and Justice N. Authinathan in Chinnathambi alias Subramani Vs Inspector of Police (2017) had held that “if the Investigating Officer, despite the earnest efforts taken, is unable to detect the crime, he will submit a report to the Magistrate stating that the crime is “undetectable”. In such a case, it cannot be construed that the investigation has been completed. If once the investigation is completed, then only a report could be filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. A report of this kind where the Police Officer states that the crime is undetectable, does not terminate the investigation and thus, the investigation is construed to be in progress.”
The de facto complainant (victim) has the right to either consent to the closure of the case or to file a Protest Petition. A Full Bench of the Supreme Court in Bhagwat Singh Vs Commissioner of Police (1985) had made it clear that when the Magistrate “is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process.”
Conversely, when victims who had already spent considerable time and energy in lodging complaints, decide to accept the closure, a simple endorsement on the Notice from the police should ideally do. Additionally, a separate No-Objection Letter, or perhaps even an Affidavit should more than suffice. Non-appearance before the Magistrate after a clear written No Objection from the informant should automatically lead to closure of the case.
There is no point flogging a dead, or rather, untraceable horse! Insistence on the physical presence of de facto complainants before magistrates and serving repeated notices is procedural abuse and harassment. This must be avoided, lest victims hesitate to complain in future.
The police and courts must remind themselves that victims are not accused.
(The writer is an advocate practising at the Madras high court, legal columnist & author of 4 books)
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
