The Madras High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against an advocate whose act with a woman in his private office was accidentally displayed in the online proceedings of a Court Hall.

It was observed that the Final Report and the materials collected by the prosecution did not disclose the ingredients of the offences under Sections 228, 294(a), 354A and 370(2) IPC, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Court also observed that the petitioner had not knowingly committed any act to disrupt the proceedings and that the continuation of the trial, after he had already been dealt with in contempt jurisdiction for the same occurrence, would serve no purpose other than harassment and would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

The Bench of Justice M Nirmal Kumar observed, "The accidental streaming of petitioner logging into the virtual hearing is also not in dispute. Thus, the petitioner had not committed any act knowingly to cause any disruption to the proceedings, a private act got streamed due to ignorance of technology. More so, when the virtual hearing and usage of electronic device was thrusted due to the prevailing circumstances then, when the entire process was at a nascent stage".

Advocate R.C.Paul Kanagaraj appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate R.Rajasekaran appeared for the Respondent

Brief Facts

The petitioner, an Advocate, was the sole accused in a case for the offences under Sections 228, 294(a), 354A and 370(2) IPC, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The case of the prosecution was that a video clipping showing the online proceedings of Court Hall No.11 of the High Court, in which a male participant was seen engaged in an erotic act with a woman, went viral on social media.

The Division Bench took suo motu cognizance and directed the CB-CID to register an FIR and to name the persons seen in the clipping. Accordingly, the respondent registered the case on the suo motu report of a Sub-Inspector of Police against unknown persons.

During investigation, the petitioner was identified as the male participant. It was alleged that he logged into the Microsoft Teams video conference of the Court Hall on his laptop from his office, called “X”, who worked as an Office Assistant and in domestic work at his residence, near him and engaged in the act.

It was further alleged that he exploited the financial condition of the family of “X” by offering her money, a new dress and food, and that she was subjected to sexual exploitation several times. The petitioner was arrested, and on completion of the investigation, the respondent filed the Final Report. 

The petitioner was also proceeded against in Suo Motu Crl.Contempt Petition before the Division Bench. He pleaded guilty, tendered an unconditional apology and was sentenced to simple imprisonment and fine, the sentence being set off against the period of incarceration already undergone.

He paid compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to “X” through the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, and the Division Bench, accepting the apology as genuine, purged him of the contempt. The Division Bench had also observed that canoodling with a lady during Court hours in one’s office, by itself, is not an offence nor does it attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in the criminal case and to quash the same.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioner submitted that, even if the Final Report and the materials collected by the respondent were taken at their face value, no offence was made out against the petitioner. The occurrence took place in a closed room in his private office and not in a public place. The act came to be seen in the virtual court only because the petitioner, who was not conversant with electronic devices, was unaware that the virtual court had been left running in the background of his laptop. There was no intention on his part to insult or interrupt the judicial proceedings, and hence Section 228 IPC was not attracted.

Per contra, the State opposed the petition and submitted that the Final Report was based on the statement of “X” recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the statement of “Y”, the confession of the petitioner and the records furnished by the Bar Council. It was contended that in a case of sexual offence, the testimony of the victim alone was sufficient.

It was further submitted that the act was streamed live in the course of judicial proceedings through Microsoft Teams and thereby became a public act, the intention being inferable from the conduct. The pleas of “closed room”, mistaken streaming, and age and infirmity were defences which could be examined only at trial. The failure to trace the first circulator did not absolve the petitioner of his own acts. It was also submitted that the contempt proceedings and the criminal prosecution were distinct, and therefore there was no double jeopardy.

Observations/Findings of the Court 

The main issue for the consideration of the Court was whether the final report and the materials relied on by the prosecution disclose the ingredients of the offences with which the petitioner is charged, and whether the continuation of the concerned criminal case would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

It recorded that the petitioner was in his own office, logged into the video conference to take notes, and engaged in the act. There was neither averment nor material that the petitioner intended to interrupt the proceedings or that he knew his conduct would be displayed in the virtual court.

The Court further noted that the prosecution’s own witnesses supported the stand that the display was inadvertent. The junior advocate of the petitioner stated under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. that it was his routine to open the court list and the video conference on the petitioner’s laptop, that the petitioner was not well versed in technology, and that he had minimised the video conference and muted the audio so that the petitioner was unaware of it.

The Reader/Examiner who hosted the session stated that he removed the petitioner from the meeting as soon as he noticed the incident. None of the witnesses stated that the petitioner knowingly displayed himself to the virtual court.

The Court held that the plea of guilt in the contempt proceedings did not advance the case of the prosecution.

As regards Section 294(a) IPC, the Court held that the section has three components, namely an obscene act, done in a public place, to the annoyance of others. As per the Final Report itself, the act was done in the private office of the petitioner and not in a public place. The virtual court was not a place where the petitioner had gone to perform any act. The act came to be seen on a screen because the video conferencing link, joined for following the proceedings, remained connected in the background. The Final Report did not allege that the petitioner switched on the camera or addressed the virtual court knowingly.

It was added that the charge under Section 67A of the IT Act could not rest on that circulation, as there was no material that the petitioner recorded the video, forwarded it or caused it to be forwarded to anyone intentionally.

The Court also noted that the laptop seized from the petitioner was sent for forensic examination seeking details regarding its use and login on the relevant day, the applications used, the login IDs, and the time of entry and exit on Microsoft Teams. However, no such report was received to conclusively establish the originator or to confirm the place, time and device used, and these vital facts were not available.

The Court accepted the contention of the respondent that contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and a prosecution under the IPC, IT Act and TNPHW Act are distinct in nature, and that the bar of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 337 BNSS (Section 300 Cr.P.C.) was not attracted in the strict sense. However, in exercise of the power under Section 528 BNSS, the Court was required to see whether continuation of the prosecution would be oppressive. 

It was observed, "It must be made clear that this Court does not approve of the conduct of the petitioner, an advocate, which has been described by the Division Bench in strong terms, and for which he has been dealt with by the Court in contempt jurisdiction and by his professional body. The question in this petition is only whether the specific penal provisions invoked against him are made out on the materials collected by the prosecution, and, for the reasons above, they are not."

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the proceedings in the criminal case before the Mahila Court, Allikulam, Chennai insofar as the petitioner was concerned, were quashed. 

Cause Title: R.D.Santhanakrishnan v. State [CRL OP No. 6617 of 2026]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate R.C.Paul Kanagaraj

Respondent: Advocate R.Rajasekaran

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags: