The Calcutta High Court has set aside an order accepting a ‘Nil/No Clue’ Final Report and dropping a special case arising from allegations of casteist abuse on Facebook, holding that the filing of charge sheets in other cases instituted by the same complainant cannot be used as a basis to presume that a separate complaint lacks merit.
Justice Uday Kumar held that each criminal transaction must be assessed on its own factual and evidentiary matrix, and that a complainant’s involvement in prior or parallel cases cannot constitute a legal basis to non-suit a distinct complaint alleging casteist insults through digital media.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by the petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, alleging that two persons had posted foul, unparliamentary and casteist expletives on Facebook, targeting his caste identity, religion, God and family. The complaint led to registration of a case under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. During investigation, the complainant’s statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded, statements of independent witnesses were taken and digital links and screenshots were formally seized.
However, the police subsequently submitted a Final Report True, “Nil/No clue”, stating that efforts made through the Cyber Police Station to obtain user particulars from Facebook had not yielded actual user details. The Special Court rejected the complainant’s protest petition and accepted the closure report, noting that charge sheets had been filed in three other special cases instituted by the same complainant.
The High Court found this reasoning legally unsustainable. Relying on the principle laid down in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, the Court observed that upon submission of a final report, the Magistrate or Special Judge is required to independently examine a protest petition to determine whether cognizable material has been overlooked or whether the investigation was perfunctory.
The Court further held that the concept of “public view” under Sections 3(1)(r)/(s) of the SC/ST Act transcends physical space and extends to the digital domain. Where screenshots and links have been formally seized and are corroborated by a Section 164 statement, the investigating agency cannot simply conclude that there is “no clue” merely because a local cyber inquiry with Facebook/Meta did not yield user particulars.
Justice Uday Kumar directed that the matter be remanded to the Special Court and ordered further investigation under the direct supervision of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (South-West Division/Specialized Cyber Cell supervisory tier), Kolkata Police. Specialized cyber-forensic personnel are to be deployed to trace the digital footprints and profile logs associated with the offending posts.
The Court directed that a police report under Section 173(8) CrPC be submitted before the jurisdictional Special Court within three months from the date of communication of the order. The criminal revision was accordingly allowed.
