The Kerala High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot return a private complaint merely because the complainant has not provided the accused’s postal address.
Justice C.S. Dias delivered the ruling while allowing a criminal miscellaneous case that challenged an order of the Judicial First-Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur. The Magistrate had returned the complaint solely for want of the accused’s postal address.
Background of the Case
The petitioner filed a private complaint alleging that the third respondent committed offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The allegations stemmed from defamatory and malicious posts circulated on WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram.
The petitioner issued a legal notice through the respondent’s social media accounts. The respondent did not reply. The alleged defamatory content continued online.
When the petitioner presented the complaint before the Magistrate, the court returned it. The Magistrate objected that the complainant had not furnished the accused’s postal address.
High Court’s Analysis
The petitioner argued that neither the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) nor the BNS makes disclosure of a postal address a precondition for filing a complaint. This becomes particularly relevant in online misconduct cases, where the accused may act anonymously.
The Court examined the definition of “complaint” under Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS. The provision permits allegations against “some person, whether known or unknown.” Justice Dias noted that if the law recognises complaints against unknown persons, insisting on a postal address at the threshold contradicts the statutory framework.
The Court observed:
“If the law recognises registration of crimes against unknown persons when a cognizable offence is made out, it would be incongruous to insist on the disclosure of a postal address as a jurisdictional prerequisite for private complaints alleging non-cognizable offences.”
The Court also examined Sections 63 and 64 of the BNSS. These provisions allow service of summons through electronic communication. It further referred to Sections 67C, 69, 69A, and 69B of the IT Act, which require intermediaries to preserve and disclose user data in accordance with law.
Justice Dias also considered the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and the Kerala Electronic Processes (Issuance, Service and Execution) Rules, 2025. These rules facilitate service through disclosed electronic communication addresses.
Based on this framework, the Court held that the law does not mandate furnishing a postal address as a condition precedent for entertaining a complaint.
“It would be too rustic to direct the furnishing of the postal address of the accused to entertain a complaint. To return a complaint solely for want of a postal address is to subordinate substantive justice to procedural rigidity,” the Court said.
Access to Justice in Cyber Cases
The Court highlighted access-to-justice concerns in cyber offence cases. In matters involving cyberbullying, impersonation, online defamation, and digital harassment, perpetrators often use pseudonyms or partial identities. In such situations, complainants may only have electronic identifiers.
Insisting on a postal address at the threshold stage would deny access to justice. It would also encourage deliberate anonymity and frustrate criminal law enforcement, the Court noted.
The Court clarified that it cannot express helplessness merely because the accused’s address is unavailable. If a cognizable offence is made out, the officer in charge of the police station can register a crime and trace the accused, including unknown persons.
“Ultimately, processual rules are the handmaid of justice,” the Court added.
Directions Issued
The High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order and directed the court to take the complaint on file.
It further ordered that process be issued to the accused through the electronic communication addresses disclosed in the complaint. If the accused fails to respond, the Magistrate must proceed in accordance with the BNSS and applicable electronic process rules.
Additionally, the Court directed the Registrar (District Judiciary) to place the matter before the competent authority to consider amendments to the Criminal Rules of Practice to address private complaints involving cyber offences.
Case Details
Case Title: MR. Anagh v State of Kerala and Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner: Gayathri Muraleedharan, Archana B, Ajin K Kuriakose, Sruthilakshmi Shaji
Counsel for Respondent: C.S. Hrithwik (Senior Public Prosecutor), S. Krishna
