Casteist Facebook abuse cannot be closed as “no clue” without specialised cyber investigation, Calcutta High Court rules

The petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, lodged a complaint alleging that Rabiul Islam Bulbul and Sayan Dutta, through Facebook, posted abusive and casteist remarks targeting his caste, religion, deity, and family. Screenshots and digital links were enclosed with the complaint.

The complaint resulted in Behala Police Station Case No. 274 dated 17 October 2022 under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, subsequently registered as Special Case No. 89 of 2022.

During investigation, the petitioner’s statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, statements of independent witnesses were recorded under Section 161, and the digital material was formally seized.

The police nevertheless submitted a “Final Report True—No Clue” on the ground that Facebook, despite being approached through the Cyber Police Station, had not supplied the actual user particulars.

The petitioner filed a na-raji/protest petition, which the Special Court rejected on 27 June 2023. The court accepted the FRT and dropped the proceeding, also relying on the fact that charge-sheets had been filed in three other cases instituted by the petitioner.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 482 read with Sections 395 and 397 of the Cr.P.C. and considered the power of further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

Under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, caste-based insults or abuses, including those made in a place within public view, constitute an offence; the concept of public view may extend to the digital sphere where offensive material is disseminated through social media.

Relying on Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Anr., (1985) 2 SCC 537, the Court held that a Magistrate or Special Court must independently assess a protest petition and determine whether the investigation was perfunctory or material evidence was overlooked.

Under Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias Deepak & Ors., (2013) 5 SCC 762, further investigation may be directed where the circumstances disclose an inadequate or incomplete investigation, including through appropriate specialised agencies.

The State’s reliance on K. Vadivel v. V. Shanthi & Ors., (2024) 19 SCC 382, concerning cautious exercise of the power under Section 173(8), was treated as factually distinguishable.

The Court held that the Special Court’s reliance on the petitioner’s other cases was legally impermissible because each criminal transaction must be assessed independently on its own allegations and evidentiary foundation.

The existence of charge-sheets in unrelated proceedings could not operate as a negative presumption against the present complaint or justify acceptance of the FRT.

The Court further found that the investigation could not be treated as conclusive merely because Facebook had not supplied user-identification particulars.

The FIR, the Section 164 statement, the seized screenshots, and the digital links disclosed material requiring meaningful evaluation and potentially further technical investigation.

In the Court’s view, the investigating agency had not exhausted specialised cyber-forensic measures, including tracing digital footprints, profile logs, and other technical evidence through an appropriate supervisory or specialised cyber unit.

The failure to pursue those avenues rendered the investigation inadequate and the acceptance of the “No Clue” report unsustainable.

It set aside the impugned order, quashed the acceptance of the FRT and the dropping of Special Case No. 89 of 2022, and remanded the matter to the Special Court for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

The further investigation was directed to be conducted under the supervision of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South-West Division or the specialised cyber-cell supervisory tier, with assistance from cyber-forensic personnel.

A further police report was directed to be filed before the Special Court within three months from communication of the judgment.

The revision was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.