- within Criminal Law topic(s)
- in European Union
- in European Union
- in European Union
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
- within Criminal Law, Technology, Government and Public Sector topic(s)
In Anagh v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2026:KER:16819, the Kerala High Court set aside an order of the Magistrate returning a private complaint solely on the ground that the complainant had not furnished the postal address of the accused.
The case arose from a private complaint filed by the petitioner alleging that the accused had circulated defamatory and malicious content against him through various social media platforms and messaging services. The complaint invoked Sections 356(2), 351, 61 and 77 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well as Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. While the complainant had disclosed several electronic identifiers of the accused, including phone numbers and social media handles, the Judicial First Class Magistrate returned the complaint on the sole ground that the postal address of the accused had not been provided.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the High Court contending that in cases involving cyber offences, victims often possess only digital identifiers of the offender, such as phone numbers, email IDs or social media accounts, and insisting on a physical address at the threshold stage would make prosecution of cyber offences virtually impossible.
The High Court examined the statutory framework governing private complaints and noted that the definition of a "complaint" under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 does not require disclosure of the postal address of the accused as a condition precedent for entertaining the complaint. The Court observed that the law itself recognises that allegations may be made against persons who may be known or even unknown at the stage of initiation of proceedings.
The Court also noted that modern criminal procedure increasingly recognises electronic modes of communication and service. In the context of cyber offences, offenders frequently operate under pseudonymous identities and victims may only have access to digital footprints. In such circumstances, the insistence on a physical address at the stage of filing a complaint would defeat access to justice and enable offenders to evade the law through anonymity.
While dealing with the Magistrate's reasoning, the Court emphasised that procedural requirements cannot be interpreted in a manner that frustrates substantive justice, observing:
"To return a complaint solely for want of a postal address is to subordinate substantive justice to procedural rigidity."
The Court further highlighted that the statutory framework governing intermediaries under the Information Technology Act obligates service providers to preserve and disclose user information when required by law, thereby enabling investigative authorities to trace offenders operating through concealed digital identities. Although the Court noted that such disclosure mechanisms may not automatically apply in defamation cases initiated through private complaints without police investigation or executive authorisation, it clarified that the Court nonetheless possesses powers under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to direct any person, including intermediaries, to produce documents or information necessary for the proceedings.
The Court also made significant observations on the changing nature of crime in the digital era. It noted that offences such as cyberbullying, online impersonation, digital stalking, identity theft and social media defamation have become increasingly rampant. In many such cases, offenders operate through fake or anonymous digital identities, and the complainant may only possess electronic identifiers of the accused. The postal address of the offender often becomes ascertainable only through technical investigation.
In such circumstances, the Court observed that insisting on disclosure of a postal address at the threshold stage would deny access to justice, render victims remediless, encourage deliberate anonymity and frustrate effective criminal law enforcement. The Court emphasised that until specific regulations or standard operating procedures are formulated to address such situations, the criminal justice system cannot remain anchored in procedural formalism that is unsuited to the technological realities of the digital age.
Significantly, the Court observed that the absence of a postal address cannot become a ground for judicial helplessness. Where a complaint discloses the commission of an offence, the law already recognises that proceedings can be initiated even against unknown persons. Therefore, it would be incongruous to insist upon disclosure of a postal address as a jurisdictional prerequisite for private complaints, particularly when the law itself permits registration of criminal cases against unidentified offenders.
In this backdrop, the Court held that the Magistrate erred in returning the complaint at the threshold stage. Instead, once a complaint discloses the commission of an offence, the Magistrate may proceed in accordance with law, including issuing process through the disclosed electronic communication details and directing appropriate investigation to ascertain the identity and location of the accused.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order returning the complaint and directed the Magistrate to accept the complaint on file and proceed in accordance with law, including issuance of process through the available electronic communication details. The Court further directed the Registrar (District Judiciary) to place the matter before the competent authority of the High Court to examine whether suitable amendments to the Criminal Rules of Practice may be required to effectively deal with complaints relating to cyber offences.
By
Rajat Jain, Advocate
Vaish Associates Advocates
Email id: rajatjain@vaishlaw.com
Mobile No. 9953887311
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rajat-jain-75772398/
© 2026, Vaish Associates Advocates,
All rights reserved
Advocates, 1st & 11th Floors, Mohan Dev Building 13, Tolstoy Marg New Delhi-110001 (India).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in this article are solely of the authors of this article.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
© 2026, Vaish Associates Advocates,
All rights reserved
Advocates, 1st & 11th Floors, Mohan Dev Building 13, Tolstoy Marg New Delhi-110001 (India).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in this article are solely of the authors of this article.
