R.D.Santhanakrishnan vs State Rep By Inspector of Police,

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDERS RESERVED ON: 25-09-2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 30-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL OP No. 6617 of 2026
and
Crl.M.P.No.4860 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA010566142026}
R.D.Santhanakrishnan ... Petitioner / Accused
Vs
State rep. By
Inspector of Police,
Crime Branch CID.,
Egmore, Chennai. ... Respondent / Complainant

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records
in Spl.S.C.No.326 of 2025, on the file of the Mahila Court, Allikulam,
Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj
For Respondent : Mr.R.Rajasekaran
Govt.Advocate (Crl.side)

1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 528
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), to call
for the records in Spl.S.C.No.326 of 2025 on the file of the Mahila
Court, Allikulam, Chennai, and to quash the same.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.326 of 2025,
which arises out of Crime No.13 of 2021, registered by the
respondent, Cyber Crime Cell, Crime Branch CID, Egmore, Chennai.
He stands charged for the offences under Sections 228, 292(2)(a),
294(a), 354A and 370(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”),
Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act,
1998 (“TNPHW Act”) and Section 67A of the Information Technology
Act, 2000 (“IT Act”). Subsequently, in respect of the alleged obscene
video, the person, who transmitted through social media is not
traceable so far, the offence under Section 292(2)(a) IPC is dropped.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, are as follows:-
(i) On 20.12.2021, a video clipping showing the online
proceedings of Court Hall No.11 of this Court, in which a male
participant seen engaged in an erotic act with a woman, went viral on
social media. The Division Bench took suo motu cognizance and, by
order dated 21.12.2021 in Suo Motu Crl.Contempt Petition No.1699
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
of 2021, directed the CB-CID to register a suo motu FIR and to name
the persons seen in the clipping. Pursuant to the memorandum of the
Director General of Police, CB-CID, in Rc.No.Crime II(1)/18772/2021
dated 21.12.2021, the respondent registered Crime No.13 of 2021,
on 22.12.2021, on the suo motu report of one U.M.Avinash, Sub-
Inspector of Police, for the offences under Sections 228, 292(2)(a)
and 294(a) IPC and Section 67A of the IT Act, against unknown
persons.
4.The Registrar (IT-cum-Statistics) of this Court furnished a
Compact Disc containing the clipping, which downloaded from the
forwarded video circulating on WhatsApp, together with the cause
list, the participant log-in details and a Certificate under Section 65-B
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and
Puducherry provided the enrolment particulars of the petitioner, an
Advocate, enrolled as No.MS.3907/2011, and informed that he had
been prohibited from practicing by Resolution, dated 21.12.2021. The
woman seen in the clipping, aged about 20 years, was identified. Her
identity is withheld in this order and she is referred to as “X”, and
her mother as “Y”, in the manner adopted by the Division Bench in
the contempt proceedings.
5. According to the final report, the petitioner, who was in his
office at Ayanavaram, Chennai, logged into the Microsoft Teams
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
video conference of Court Hall No.11 on his laptop. At about 15.00
hours on 20.12.2021, he called “X”, who was working as an Office
Assistant and in domestic work at his residence, near him and
engaged in the act. He sexually harassed “X”, and that prior to the
occurrence he used the financial condition of the family of “X” to his
advantage and exploited her sexually by offering money, a new dress
and food, and she was subjected to physical and sexual exploitation
several times.
6.The statement of “X” was recorded on 28.12.2021 under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, based on which, sections were altered on 07.01.2022 to
Sections 228, 292(2)(a), 294(a) and 354A IPC, Section 4 of the
TNPHW Act and Section 67A of the IT Act. The petitioner arrested on
08.01.2022 and released on station bail. Further statements of “X”
and “Y” were recorded on 21.01.2022, Section 370(2) IPC., added by
a second alteration report, the petitioner arrested again on
21.01.2022 and remanded to judicial custody.
7. On completion of investigation, the respondent filed the Final
Report on 13.12.2024, for the offences under Sections 228, 294(a),
354A and 370(2) IPC, Section 4 of the TNPHW Act and Section 67A of
the IT Act. The offence under Section 292(2)(a) IPC was dropped,
because the person who captured and circulated the video could not
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
be traced. The final report indicates eleven witnesses, namely, the
Sub-Inspector, who gave the special report, the Registrar (IT-cum-
Statistics), the Secretary of the Bar Council, the Reader/Examiner,
who hosted the video conference, the President of the Women
Lawyers Association, three persons said to know the petitioner and
“X”, junior advocate of the petitioner, wife of the petitioner, two
persons, who attested the arrest and confession, and the
Investigating Officer. The learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, took cognizance in PRC.No.3 of 2025 on 07.01.2025 and
committed the case to the Mahila Court, Allikulam, on 16.06.2025,
where it is pending as Spl.S.C.No.326 of 2025.
8.The petitioner was also proceeded against in Suo Motu
Crl.Contempt Petition No.1699 of 2021. By order dated 12.04.2022,
the Division Bench found that he had pleaded guilty to the charges
framed under Section 2(c)(i), (ii) and (iii) read with Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and tendered an unconditional apology,
and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for two weeks for each
charge, to run concurrently, and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for each charge,
with the sentence of imprisonment set off against 34 days of
incarceration already undergone in Cr.No.13 of 2021. As directed by
this Court, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as
compensation to “X”, through the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services
Authority. By a further order dated 18.10.2022 in Sub Application
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
(OS) No.459 of 2022, the Division Bench accepted the apology as
genuine and purged the petitioner of the contempt.
9.The Division Bench also made the following observation in
paragraph 5 of its order dated 12.04.2022, which is relevant for the
present case of quashment.
“…canoodling with a lady during Court hours in
one’s office, by itself, is not an offence nor would
it attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
Act.”
10. Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that even if the entire final report and the
materials collected by the respondent are taken at their face value,
no offence is made out against the petitioner. The alleged occurrence
took place in a closed room, in the office of the petitioner, and not in
a public place. It came to be seen in the virtual court because the
petitioner, who is not conversant with electronic devices, was
unaware that the virtual court had been left running in the
background of his laptop. There was no intention on his part to insult
or interrupt the judicial proceedings, and thus Section 228 IPC is not
attracted.
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
11. The learned counsel further submitted that Section 294(a)
IPC requires an obscene act in a public place, and Section 292(2)(a)
IPC has itself been dropped by the respondent. The respondent
admitted in the final report that the person, who recorded and
circulated the video could not be traced, in spite of a notice issued to
WhatsApp, and, therefore, Section 67A of the IT Act cannot be
pressed against the petitioner. The “X” did not make any complaint,
is not cited as a witness, and no witness has spoken to any act of
torture, harassment or forcible misbehaviour by the petitioner
against her. Sections 354A IPC and 4 of the TNPHW Act are not made
out. Section 370(2) IPC, which added after the petitioner arrested
and enlarged on bail, is not attracted, since there is no allegation of
recruitment, transportation or harbouring of any person for
exploitation. The petitioner has already been punished by this Court
in the contempt jurisdiction for the very same occurrence, undergone
imprisonment, paid Rs.4,00,000/- to “X”, and has been purged of the
contempt. Continuation of the trial for the same occurrence would be
an abuse of the process of law.
12. Opposing the petition, Mr.R.Rajasekaran, the learned
Government Advocatee (crlo.side) submitted that the final report is
based on the statement of “X” recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,
the statement of “Y”, the confession of the petitioner and the records
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
from the Bar Council. In a case of sexual offence, the testimony of
the victim alone is sufficient; the act was streamed live in the course
of judicial proceedings through Microsoft Teams and thereby became
a public act, the intention being inferable from the conduct that the
pleas of “closed room” and of mistaken streaming, and the plea of
age and infirmity, are defences which can be examined only at trial.
The failure to trace the first circulator not absolved the petitioner of
his own acts. The contempt proceedings and the criminal prosecution
are distinct, so there is no double jeopardy.
13. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused
the petition, the counter affidavit, the final report with the memo of
evidence and the statements recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C.
which are filed along with it, and the orders of this Court in the
contempt proceedings.
14.Section 528 BNSS, preserves the inherent power of this
Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any
order under the Sanhita, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The principles are well
settled. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC
335) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court illustrated the categories in which
the power may be exercised, including where the allegations in the
First Information Report or the complaint, even if taken at their face
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused, and where the
uncontroverted allegations and the evidence collected in support of
them do not disclose the commission of any offence. In Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC
401 , it was reiterated that the power must be exercised sparingly
and with circumspection, that the Court does not conduct a mini-trial
or appreciate the reliability of the material at this stage, but that the
Court is duty bound to examine whether the allegations, as they
stand, make out the ingredients of the offences charged.
15.The point for consideration is, therefore, whether the final
report and the materials relied on by the prosecution, taken as they
stand, disclose the ingredients of the offences with which the
petitioner is charged, and whether the continuation of Spl.S.C.No.326
of 2025 would amount to an abuse of the process of Court. The
offences are examined in turn.
16. Section 228 IPC punishes whoever intentionally offers any
insult, or causes any interruption, to any public servant while such
public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding.
Intention is the gist of the offence. The final report does not allege
any act of the petitioner directed at the learned Judge or at the
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
proceedings of the Court. It records that the petitioner was in his
own office, logged into the video conference using his laptop to take
notes, and engaged in the act at about 15.00 hours. There is no
averment, and no material, that the petitioner intended to interrupt
the proceedings, or that he knew that his conduct would be displayed
in the virtual court.
17. On the contrary, the prosecution’s own witnesses support
the stand that the display was inadvertent. The junior advocate of
the petitioner / Parthiban, stated under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. that it
was his routine to open the court list and the video conference on the
laptop of the petitioner, the petitioner is not well versed in
technology, and on 20.12.2021 he minimised the video conference
and muted the audio, so that the petitioner unaware of it. The
Registrar (IT-cum-Statistics) has stated that the Registry does not
record the proceedings, and the Reader/Examiner, who hosted the
session stated that he removed the petitioner from the meeting as
soon as he noticed the incident. None of the witnesses states that the
petitioner knowingly displayed himself to the virtual court.
18. The plea of guilty of the petitioner in the contempt
proceedings does not advance the case of the prosecution. Contempt
of Court, particularly under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971, turns on the effect of an act on the authority and
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
administration of justice, and the Division Bench was exercising a
distinct jurisdiction, in which it accepted the apology and took a
lenient view on sentence. An admission of that nature cannot be read
as an admission of the specific intention that Section 228 IPC
requires. The Division Bench itself noted that the petitioner’s conduct
in his office was, by itself, not an offence. Having regard to the
absence of any averment or material on intention, the offence under
Section 228 IPC is not made out.
19. Section 294(a) IPC applies to whoever, to the annoyance of
others, does any obscene act in any public place. It has three
components: an obscene act, done in a public place, to the annoyance
of others. As per the final report itself, the act was done in the
private office of the petitioner at Ayanavaram, Chennai, and not in a
public place. The virtual court was not a place where the petitioner
had gone to perform any act. The act came to be seen on a screen
because a video conferencing link, joined for the purpose of following
the proceedings, remained connected in the background. The final
report not alleged that the petitioner switched on the camera or
addressed the virtual court knowingly. An act that is done in private
and is exposed by a technical circumstance of which the doer was
unaware cannot, without more, be said to be done in a public place.
No participant of the virtual court is cited as a witness to speak of
annoyance caused to him or her. The Division Bench has itself
11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
observed that the act, by itself, is not an offence. Section 294(a) IPC
is therefore not attracted.
20. Section 67A of the IT Act punishes whoever publishes or
transmits, or causes to be published or transmitted, in the electronic
form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct.
The respondent has dropped Section 292(2)(a) IPC for the reason
that the person who captured the video and circulated it on social
media is untraceable. A notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was issued to
WhatsApp on 27.12.2021, and no reply identifying the first circulator
received. The charge under Section 67A, which is the penal provision
for publication and transmission in the electronic form, cannot rest
on that circulation, as there is no material that the petitioner
recorded the video, forwarded it, or caused it to be forwarded to
anyone intentionally.
21. The respondent has thus sought to sustain Section 67A on
the ground that the petitioner’s conduct itself streamed live through
Microsoft Teams. The words “publishes”, “transmits” and “causes to
be published or transmitted” denote volitional acts. As discussed
above, the materials collected by the respondent show that the
petitioner did not know that the video conference was running on his
laptop. The live feed of a video conferencing platform, which
displayed because of a technical circumstance and not through any
12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
act of the petitioner directed towards publishing or transmitting the
material, does not amount to publication or transmission by him
within the meaning of Section 67A. There is no material of the
petitioner’s knowledge, intention or volition, and the offence under
Section 67A of the IT Act is not made out. Notably, the respondent,
while dropping Section 292(2)(a) IPC for want of identification of the
person who circulated the video, not explained how the same
circulation could continue to found a charge under Section 67A
against the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is not
conversant or tech-savvy in handling the electronic devices. The
petitioner's junior colleague admits that it was he who operated the
laptop and joined the virtual hearing. It is to be noted that the virtual
hearing of cases were entertained during the COVOID-19 pandemic,
where there was restriction and limited access to the physical court
hearings and everyone were in fear of life, with no proper medical
treatment. The accidental streaming of petitioner logging into the
virtual hearing is also not in dispute. Thus, the petitioner had not
committed any act knowingly to cause any disruption to the
proceedings, a private act got streamed due to ignorance of
technology. More so, when the virtual hearing and usage of
electronic device was thrusted due to the prevailing circumstances
then, when the entire process was at a nascent stage

13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
22. Section 354A(1) IPC defines sexual harassment, as a man
committing any of the following acts: physical contact and advances
involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; a demand or
request for sexual favours; showing pornography against the will of a
woman; or making sexually coloured remarks. The final report states
only that the petitioner “called the victim near him and engaged in
the erotic act”, and that he had sexually harassed the victim and
exploited her by offering money, a new dress and food. It does not
state which of the acts under Section 354A(1) was committed, when,
where, or in what manner, nor does it state that any act was
unwelcome to “X” at the time of occurrence. The statements
recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. of the witnesses cited by the
prosecution, including those of the wife of the petitioner and of the
persons said to know “X” and the petitioner, do not speak to any
unwelcome physical contact, sexual overture, demand or remark by
the petitioner. The general statement that “X” was “sexually
harassed without consent”, without any particulars of the act
complained of, cannot supply the ingredients of Section 354A IPC.
The contention of the respondent that the sole testimony of a victim
of sexual offence is sufficient is correct as a proposition of law, but it
presupposes a testimony that discloses the commission of the
offence, and the final report, as it stands, rests on no such testimony.
It can be said petitioner pulled “X” by hand and made an attempt to
misbehave. The “X” made no complaint and in normal course it could
have passed by but for the sensation it created.
14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
23. Section 4 of the TNPHW Act penalises harassment of
woman in or within the precincts of an educational institution, a
temple or other place of worship, a bus stop, road, railway station,
cinema theater, park, beach, place of festival, or a public service
vehicle or vessel, “or any other place”. The residuary words must
take colour from the preceding places, which are all public places.
The place of occurrence is the private office of the petitioner.
Moreover, as held above, the final report not disclosed an act of
harassment of “X” as such. Section 4 of the TNPHW Act is not
attracted.
24. Section 370 IPC defines the offence of trafficking as
recruiting, transporting, harbouring, transferring or receiving a
person or persons, for the purpose of exploitation, by any of the
means specified in the section, namely threats, force or other
coercion, abduction, fraud or deception, abuse of power, or
inducement, including the giving or receiving of payments or benefits
to achieve the consent of any person having control over the person
recruited, transported, harboured, transferred or received. Sexual
exploitation is one of the forms of exploitation, but exploitation by
itself is not the of fence. The act of recruiting, transporting,
harbouring, transferring or receiving by one of the specified means is
the sine qua non.
15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
25. It is to be seen that in this case the Laptop, Lenova Yoga
seized sent for forensic examination seeking following queries;
(i) Whether the Laptop was used /login’d on
20.12.2021, if so provide us the details with time.
(ii) Frequently used Applications and Softwares of
the laptop
(iii) The login Ids frequently used in the Laptop
(iv) Whether Microsoft Teams software installed in
the laptop, if so the provide us the time in and time out
on 20.12.2021.
(v) Complete history of the laptop on 20.12.2021
But, no such report received to conclusively hold the originator, to
confirm the place, time and the device used. In the present case,
these vital facts not available.
26. The only addition made after the second arrest is that the
petitioner used the financial condition of the family of “X” and offered
money, a new dress and food. The final report records that “X”, a well
known person in the locality, started working as an office assistant
and in domestic work in the residence of the petitioner, for some
time, she refrained from working there because the petitioner asked
her to accompany him while he was out of station. There is no
allegation that “X” was recruited, transported, harboured,
transferred or received by the petitioner for the purpose of
exploitation, or that she was in fact taken out of station. The
allegation of offering money, a dress and food to a woman already
16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
employed by him does not, without more, satisfy the ingredients of
trafficking. The section was added on what the respondent called a
“new revelation”, and the respondent has not shown, in the final
report or in the counter affidavit, which of the ingredients of Section
370 IPC is made out by the materials. The offence under Section
370(2) IPC, which carries a minimum rigorous imprisonment of seven
years, cannot be sustained on such a bare and conclusory allegation.
27. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
prosecution is a second proceeding for the same occurrence. The
respondent is right in contending that contempt proceedings under
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and a prosecution for offences
under the IPC, the IT Act and the TNPHW Act are distinct in nature,
and the bar of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution
of India, and Section 337 BNSS (Section 300 Cr.P.C.), is not attracted
in the strict sense. However, in exercise of the power under Section
528 BNSS, this Court is required to see whether the continuation of a
prosecution would be oppressive. The same act has already been
punished by the High Court; the petitioner undergone 34 days of
incarceration, paid Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to “X”, suspended
by the Bar Council, and purged of the contempt on 18.10.2022. The
occurrence is of the year 2021, and the final report filed three years
thereafter. When the materials on record not disclosed the
ingredients of the offences charged, as held above, putting the
17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
petitioner to trial for the same occurrence would serve no purpose
other than harassment, and would be an abuse of the process of
Court.
28.It must be made clear that this Court does not approve of
the conduct of the petitioner, an advocate, which has been described
by the Division Bench in strong terms, and for which he has been
dealt with by the Court in contempt jurisdiction and by his
professional body. The question in this petition is only whether the
specific penal provisions invoked against him are made out on the
materials collected by the prosecution, and, for the reasons above,
they are not.
29. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed, and
the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.326 of 2025 on the file of the Mahila
Court, Allikulam, Chennai, arising out of Crime No.13 of 2021, on the
file of the respondent, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, are
quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.10.2026
Index: Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026


To
1. The Mahila Court, Allikulam, Chennai.
2. The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police, Crime Branch CID,
Cyber Crime Cell, Egmore, Chennai - 8.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )

CRL OP.No.6617 of 2026
M.NIRMAL KUMAR , J.
mpk
Pre-Delivery Order made in
CRL OP No. 6617 of 2026
30.10.2026
20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )