Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has ruled that social media posts and delivery of postcards containing derogatory and defamatory statements against a woman constitute the offence of insulting her modesty within the meaning of Section Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and is also punishable under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, which penalises nuisances caused through communication, including defamatory statements made through postcards or social media.

The court, presided over by a Single judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen, observed : “it has to be held that, prima facie, offence under Section 509 of the I.P.C is made out since the petitioner exhibited remarks intending to insult the modesty of the defacto complainant by writing the same in the postcards publicly,” while rejecting a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against the accused.

The complaint alleged that between October 19 and October 29, 2023, the accused, due to prior animosity with the second respondent, Archana Varghese, disseminated derogatory statements about her via social media and postcards. Specifically, the accused sent postcards to the woman's father, falsely claiming that she had undergone two abortions. The accused also shared photos of himself with the woman on Facebook, further defaming her. The prosecution charged the accused under Section 509 of IPC and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.

However, the accused, represented by Advocate M. Devesh, argued that the allegations did not constitute the offences under the relevant sections. It was emphasised that the Facebook posts and postcards did not meet the threshold for insulting modesty as defined under Section 509 of the IPC. Additionally, the defence contended that mere defamatory statements on social media do not necessarily invoke criminal proceedings unless they meet specific legal standards.

The prosecution, represented by Public Prosecutor M.P. Prasanth, countered that the accusations were severe and warranted a trial. The complainant's counsel highlighted the offensive nature of the postcards and social media posts, asserting that they had a direct intention to harm the complainant’s dignity and privacy. Given the nature of the allegations and the evidence collected, including electronic records, the prosecution argued that the case must proceed to trial.

The petitioner’s counsel referred to the decision in Fr. Geevargese John @ Subin John v. State of Kerala, where the court quashed proceedings in a defamation case, arguing that there was no explicit punishment for defamatory Facebook posts. However, in the present case, the court held that the allegations involved not only defamatory posts but also public postcards insulting the complainant's modesty, thereby justifying charges under both Section 509 IPC and Section 120(o) of the K.P. Act.

“It is discernible from the final report that during investigation, the Investigating Officer collected the pen drive and the document produced by the defacto complainant and also recorded statement of witnesses 4 to 6 to prove that he himself had sent the above messages containing materials intended to insult the modesty of the defacto complainant and caused a nuisance of himself to the defacto complainant justifying, prima facie, commission of the above offences,” the court noted.

The court concluded that the materials collected, including a pen drive with screenshots and videos, supported the defacto complainant's allegations. Despite the petitioner's claim regarding the absence of a Section 65B certificate for electronic evidence, the court found that the required certificate had been produced, negating grounds to quash the proceedings.

As a result, the court rejected the petition, ruling that there was prima facie sufficient evidence to proceed with the trial.

 

Cause Title: SATHEESHKUMAR B R v STATE OF KERALA [CRL.MC NO. 5999 OF 2024]