Telangana High Court Quashes Complaint Against Man Over Tweet On Saina Nehwal

Allowing the petition filed by the accused-petitioner (S. Siddharth) under Section 482 CrPC, a bench of Justice Juvvadi Sridevi observed that the essential ingredients required to constitute offences under Section 67 IT Act and Section 509 IPC were not made out against the petitioner.

The Court also added that the tweet made in a ‘jocular’ manner was allegedly misconstrued.

Briefly put, the complaint case pending before the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, was based on the petitioner’s tweet (targeted at Nehwal), which allegedly stated thus:

“Subtle cock champion of the world…Thank God we have protectors of India. (Sic) Shame on you #Rihanna”.

For context, the alleged tweet was in response to an earlier tweet by Nehwal concerning the alleged security lapse in the convoy of the Prime Minister.

Now, Respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the Court, alleging that the tweet was defamatory in nature and specifically aimed at Nehwal, tarnishing her reputation and undermining the dignity of a woman.

Challenging the case, Siddharth moved the HC contending that the tweet was made in the exercise of his right to freedom of speech and expression, without any malice or ill intent.

He submitted that to avoid any misunderstanding, he had also issued a clarification 4 days after making the tweet, stating that the comment was intended as a reference to the idiom “cock-and-bull story” and not otherwise.

Further, the High Court was also apprised that Nehwal acknowledged in a press statement dated January 13, 2022, that the petitioner had apologised and that she was satisfied with the same.

On the other hand, the Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court, and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings.

Against this backdrop, examining the plea, the Court noted at the outset that the complainant (respondent no. 2) was a third party and not personally aggrieved by the alleged act and had filed the present complaint without any locus standi.

On the charge under Section 67 of the IT Act, the Court noted that the alleged use of abusive or expletive-laden language does not satisfy this threshold, as it neither evokes nor is intended to evoke any sexual or lustful imagery or connotation.

Regarding the charge under Section 509 IPC, the Court noted that to attract this offence, there must be a clear allegation that the accused uttered words, made gestures, or exhibited any act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.

“A perusal of the charge sheet fails to disclose any specific instance of obscene content having been published that would amount to outraging the modesty of a woman, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of law”the court noted.

Now, after careful examination of the FIR and the charge sheet, the Court found that no independent witnesses, including Nehwal herself or any representative from the Twitter platform, were examined by the investigating agency to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused.

The Court also noted that there was nothing on record to suggest that Nehwal had herself felt outraged or insulted by the said tweet.

Therefore, holding that even if the allegations contained in the FIR and the charge sheet are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not, prima facie, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the petitioner-accused, the Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the case.