Magistrate Cannot Return Complaint For Want Of Accused’s Postal Address: Kerala HC
Court says insisting on postal address at threshold in cyber complaints subordinates substantive justice to procedural rigidity
Justice CS Dias, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot return a private complaint solely on the ground that the postal address of the accused has not been furnished, observing that “processual rules are the handmaid of justice”. The Court emphasised that procedural formalities cannot override substantive rights, particularly in cases involving cyber offences.
The Court remarked that insisting on disclosure of a postal address at the filing stage would “subordinate substantive justice to procedural rigidity”. It held that courts cannot remain anchored to procedural formalism unsuited to technological advancements and must interpret procedural laws in a manner that furthers justice in a digitally evolving society.
Justice C.S. Dias observed, “…Courts cannot express helplessness for the want of the accused's address to issue process in a private complaint. On the contrary, 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 unknown persons. Ultimately, processual rules are the handmaid of justice. 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. Therefore, merely because the Criminal Rules of Practice do not contain any provisions for the issuance of summons through electronic communication, the same cannot be a reason to return a complaint for want of a 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. Courts must interpret procedural laws that further justice in a technologically evolving society. Hence, I am convinced that the order returning the complaint for want of the accused's postal address is ex facie erroneous and unsustainable in law. The learned Magistrate ought to have accepted the complaint on file, issued process to the accused through her social media platforms by way of electronic communication, and followed the procedure discussed above”, the Bench further observed.
Advocate Gayathri Muraleedharan appeared for the petitioner and C. S. Hrithwik, Senior PP appeared for the respondent.
In the matter a complaint alleging offences against a woman under Sections 356(2), 351, 61 and 77 BNS and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, was filed where defamatory and malicious content was allegedly circulated through social media platforms.
The Magistrate had returned the complaint on the sole ground that the complainant had not furnished the accused’s postal address.
The Court, thus, examined the scheme of the BNSS and noted that the statutory definition of a “complaint” expressly permits allegations against a “known or unknown” person. The Court reasoned that when the law permits registration of offences against “unknown persons,” it would be incongruous to insist upon disclosure of a postal address as a jurisdictional prerequisite at the threshold stage of a private complaint.
The Court further observed that the BNSS permits issuance and service of summons through electronic communication. It also highlighted that intermediaries under the IT framework are statutorily obligated to preserve and retain user data, enabling identification of accused persons through lawful investigation. Therefore, in cyber cases where offenders operate under pseudonymous identities, the absence of a physical address cannot render the complainant remediless.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Magistrate to accept the complaint on file and issue process through the disclosed electronic communication addresses. It also suggested that appropriate amendments to the Criminal Rules of Practice may be considered to address complaints involving cyber offences.
Cause Title: Anagh v. State Of Kerala & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:16819]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Gayathri Muraleedharan, Archana B., Ajin K. Kuriakose, Sruthilakshmi Shaji, Advocates.
Respondents: C. S. Hrithwik, Senior PP., Kum. S. Krishna, Advocates.