The Calcutta High Court has set aside a “Nil/No clue” final report in a case concerning alleged casteist abuse of a Scheduled Caste complainant through Facebook, directing further investigation through specialised cyber-forensic channels.

Justice Uday Kumar, hearing CRR 2992 of 2023, held that the fact that the complainant had instituted other criminal cases could not be used as a basis to presume that a distinct complaint of caste-based abuse lacked merit.

The Court observed that under Section 3(1)(r)/(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the requirement of “public view” was not confined to a physical space and could extend to the digital domain.

The Court was dealing with a challenge to the June 27, 2023 order of the Special Court at Alipore, which had rejected the complainant's protest petition, accepted the police's Final Report True (FRT) and dropped the special proceeding.

The petitioner, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste community, had alleged that Rabiul Islam Bulbul and Sayan Dutta had posted foul, unparliamentary and casteist remarks against his caste identity, religion, God and family on Facebook. He had enclosed screenshots of the alleged posts with his complaint.

The complaint resulted in Behala Police Station Case No. 274 of 2022 under Section 3(1)(r)/(s) of the SC/ST Act, which was subsequently registered as Special Case No. 89 of 2022.

During investigation, the police recorded the complainant's statement under Section 164 CrPC, statements of independent witnesses under Section 161 CrPC and prepared a seizure list concerning the digital links and screenshots.

However, the investigating agency submitted a “Nil/No clue” FRT on January 20, 2023, stating that efforts to obtain the user particulars from Facebook through the Cyber Police Station, Kolkata, had not yielded the required information.

The complainant thereafter filed a protest petition, which was rejected by the Special Court. Among the reasons relied upon by the Special Court was that charge sheets had been filed in three other special cases instituted by the same complainant, while a “Nil” charge sheet/FRT had been filed in the present case.

The High Court found this reasoning unsustainable.

“What shocks judicial conscience in the instant case is the reasoning adopted by the learned Special Judge, that because the complainant had filed three other special cases where charge sheets were submitted, the 'Nil' report in the present case must be accepted,” the Court observed.

It added that criminal adjudication required every distinct criminal transaction and occurrence to be examined on its own factual and evidentiary basis.

“A litigant's resort to law in prior or parallel separate transactions can never form a legal basis to non-suit or presume a lack of merit in a distinct subsequent grievance of casteist insult committed via digital media,” the Court held.

The Court further held that where electronic screenshots and links had been formally seized and were corroborated by the complainant's Section 164 statement, the investigating agency could not simply conclude that there was “no clue” merely because its local cyber inquiry with the intermediary had failed.

The Court observed: “Under Section 3(1)(r)/(s) of the SC/ST Act, public view transcends physical space into the digital domain.”

It held that the investigation should have explored specialised cyber-forensic avenues, including tracing digital footprints and IP logs, rather than ending with the inability to obtain user particulars from Facebook/Meta.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in *Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias Deepak & Ors.* and held that the failure to direct further investigation through a higher supervisory rank or specialised cyber cell, despite the availability of digital material, resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice.

The State had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in *K. Vadivel v. V. Shanthi & Ors.* to contend that further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC should be ordered cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances. The High Court, however, held that the decision was factually distinguishable.

Accordingly, Justice Uday Kumar set aside the June 27, 2023 order, quashed the acceptance of the FRT and the dropping of Special Case No. 89 of 2022.

The matter was remanded to the Special Court with a direction that further investigation in the Behala Police Station case be conducted under the direct supervision of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South-West Division/Specialised Cyber Cell supervisory tier, Kolkata Police.

The supervisory authority was directed to deploy specialised cyber-forensic personnel to trace the digital footprints and profile logs of the offending posts and submit a report under Section 173(8) CrPC before the Special Court within three months from communication of the judgment.

The revision petition was accordingly allowed.

Case: SRI SAYAN MONDAL -VS- THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Case No:CRR 2992 OF 2023