Online comment against woman: Man, son get relief

Justice M S Ramesh, while allowing the petitions from R Arun and his father P Ramasamy, said, “The cause of action arose from the message posted on the internet by Arun. It was clear and explicit to defame the complainant and her firm. But, none of the words, or phrases in the message amounted to insulting her modesty. The complaint contained no allegation to attract the provisions of the IT Act also.”

“The averments made in the complaint, the various statements of the witnesses and the charge sheet laid does not make out a case for an offence under section 509 IPC (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman). Therefore, in my view section 509 IPC has been included only for enabling the investigating officer to proceed against Arun,” the judge added.

As per the prosecution, Karthiga Priyadarshini was running a business in the name of “Phoenix Apparels.” Arun had offered to become a partner in the said firm. But owing to certain misunderstanding, there arose a dispute between the two. Pursuant to this, Arun posted a message against Karthiga on the Internet. Taking offence to this, the latter filed a complaint about the message and that the former along with his father had spoken ill of her and threatened her. Based on this, a case was registered under IPC sections 500 and 509.

The judge, in his order also held, “The entire investigation seems to have been done for the only offence which has been made out namely section 500 IPC and the offence under section 509 IPC was unwarranted, since the same has not been made out. Since the law requires a private complaint to be made for the offence under section 500 IPC (defamation), the present charge sheet as against Arun is liable to be struck down.”

“Similarly, it can only be concluded that no offence has been made out against the father,” Justice Ramesh added.