Magistrate Can't Return Private Complaint Solely For Want Of Accused's Postal Address: Kerala High Court

Justice C S Dias was delivering the judgment in a criminal miscellaneous case.

The petitioner had filed a private complaint before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur, alleging that the third respondent had committed offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The complaint arose out of allegedly defamatory and malicious posts and messages circulated through social media platforms, including WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram.

Although the petitioner issued a legal notice to the third respondent via her WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram accounts, there was no response and the defamatory allegations against the petitioner continued through the social media platforms. The Magistrate returned the complaint, citing a defect that the complainant had not provided the postal address of the accused.

This order was challenged by the Petitioner in the present petition contending that neither the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), nor the BNS mandates disclosure of a postal address as a precondition for entertaining a complaint, particularly in cases involving online misconduct where the accused may operate anonymously.

The Court analysed the definition of “complaint” under Section 2(1)(h) of the BNSS, which expressly permits allegations against “some person, whether known or unknown.” The Court observed that if the statute recognises complaints against unknown persons, insisting on a postal address at the threshold would be legally incongruous.

“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.” Court noted.

The Court had examined Sections 63 and 64 of the BNSS, which permit issuance and service of summons through electronic communication; Sections 67C, 69, 69A and 69B of the IT Act, which impose obligations on intermediaries to preserve and disclose user data in accordance with law.

It has also examined the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and the Kerala Electronic Processes (Issuance, Service and Execution) Rules, 2025, which enable service through disclosed electronic communication addresses.

The Court further noted that according to the present framework under the BNSS, the IT Act and Rules framed and the Kerala Electronic Processes (Issuance, Service and Execution) Rules, it does not mandate the furnishing of the postal address.

“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.” Court added.

The Court observed that in cases involving cyberbullying, impersonation, online defamation and digital harassment, perpetrators frequently use pseudonymous or partially disclosed identities. In such circumstances, complainants may only have access to electronic identifiers and the accused's postal address is often unascertainable without technical intervention.

“In such cases, insisting on disclosure of a postal address at the threshold stage would deny access to justice, render victims remediless, encourage deliberate anonymity and frustrate criminal law enforcement.” Court noted.

The Court further observed that it cannot express helplessness for the want of the accused's address to issue process in a private complaint. It stated that when a cognizable offence is made out, the Officer In-charge of the police station is empowered to register a crime and proceed against the accused persons, including tracing details of the details of the unknown persons.

“Ultimately, processual rules are the handmaid of justice.” Court added.

The Court thus allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and set aside the Magistrate's order returning the complaint and directed the Magistrate to to accept the complaint on file.

It ordered issuance of process to the accused through the disclosed electronic communication addresses mentioned in the complaint and directed that further steps be taken in accordance with the BNSS and applicable electronic process rules if the accused fails to respond.

The Court has also directed the Registrar (District Judiciary) to place the matter before the competent authority to consider suitable amendments to the Criminal Rules of Practice to address complaints involving cyber offences.

Case Title: MR. Anagh v State of Kerala and Ors.

Case No: Crl. M C 8709/ 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 121

Counsel for Petitioner: Gayathri Muraleedharan, Archana B, Ajin K Kuriakose, Sruthilakshmi Shaji

Counsel for Respondent: C S Hrithwik (Sr. PP), S Krishna