Cont.P.No.3073 of 2024 and CRL OP Nos.21673 of 2023 and 14637 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Cont.P.No.3073 of 2024 and CRL.OP Nos.21673 of 2023 and 14637 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.15044 of 2023 Cont.P.No.3073 of 2024: L.K.Charles Alexander ..Petitioner Vs Mrs.Meena Kumari The Inspector of Police, G1 Nagar West Police Station, The Nilgiris. ..Respondent PRAYER in Cont.P.No.3073 of 2024: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, seeking to punish the Respondent for having wilfully disobeyed the order dated 25.09.2023 passed in Crl.O.P.No.21673 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.15044 of 2023. Crl.O.P.No.21673 of 2023: L.K.Charles Alexander ..Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, The Nilgiris District, The Nilgiris. 2.The Inspector of Police, G-1 Nagar West Police Station, The Nilgiris. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.3073 of 2024 and CRL OP Nos.21673 of 2023 and 14637 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 8 3.Nathiya ..Respondent PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.21673 of 2023: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, to call for the records in Crime No.180 of 2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent police and quash the same. Crl.O.P.No.14637 of 2026: L.K.Charles Alexander ..Petitioner Vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, The Nilgiris District, The Nilgiris. 2.The State, Represented by The Inspector of Police, Ooty Town Police West, Nilgiris District. 3.Nathiya ..Respondent PRAYER in Crl.O.P.No.14637 of 2026: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, to call for the entire records in connection with the case, in Spl.S.C.No.53 of 2024 pending on the file of the Session Judge Fast Track Mahila Court at Nilgiris and quash the same. For Petitioner(s) : For Respondent(s) : Mr.L.K.Charles Alexander (P-in-P) (in all Petitions) Mr.R.Rajasekaran Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side) (in all Petitions) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.3073 of 2024 and CRL OP Nos.21673 of 2023 and 14637 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 8 COMMON ORDER The Contempt Petition has been filed complaining of the wilful disobedience of the order dated 25.09.2023 made in Crl.O.P.No.21673 of 2023. By the said order, an interim stay of investigation in Crime No.180 of 2023 was granted by this Court. However, complaining that even after the said order, the respondent police had proceeded further with the investigation and filed the final report, the Contempt Petition has been filed. 2. Subsequently, the main Criminal Original Petitions and the Contempt Petition were ordered to be posted together and, as such, this Court is taking up all the matters, and the same are disposed of by this common order. 3. On a perusal of the FIR in Crime No.180 of 2023, it can be seen that it was registered for an offence under Section 23(4) of the POCSO Act, 2012. 4. The case of the prosecution is that, on 26.05.2023, the defacto complainant appeared before the respondent police and lodged a complaint to the effect that her daughter was a victim in a POCSO case. Merely because she had refused to withdraw the case, the accused, being an Advocate, had given an https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.3073 of 2024 and CRL OP Nos.21673 of 2023 and 14637 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 8 interview on social media by wrongfully portraying her. The same is also in violation of the Rules framed under the POCSO Act. 5. Under the said circumstances, the FIR came to be registered. My predecessor (The Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH), who dealt with the matter, had already gone through the interview given to the news channel and, while granting the interim order, recorded in paragraph 3 as follows: “3.The petitioner is an Advocate who is said to have given an interview to the new channel on a pending case which he is handling. The petitioner wanted to express the grievance that is faced by his client in the interview and that has resulted in the registration of an FIR against the news channel and the petitioner under Section 23(4) of the POCSO Act. An Advocate should never speak about the case which he is handling to the press. Unfortunately, the petitioner with a lot of enthusiasm has given some interview to a news channel and that has resulted in the registration of an FIR against the news channel and the petitioner. This Court had an opportunity to hear the interview given by the petitioner and it is seen that the petitioner has not specifically identified or given the name of the minor who is the victim in this case and the entire interview pertained to the opinion of the petitioner with regard to misuse of the provisions of the POCSO Act. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a stay of investigation in Crime No.180 of 2023, pending disposal of the criminal original petition.” 6. Thus, it can be seen that basically the malicious intention to disclose the identity of the victim or to prejudice the progress of the case was not there. Upon seeing the contents of the video, it is also found that it is a case of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.3073 of 2024 and CRL OP Nos.21673 of 2023 and 14637 of 2026 __________ Page5 of 8 over-enthusiasm and crossing the professional limit. 7. Subsequently, the learned Advocate, who also appeared as party-in-person, submitted before this Court that he would not give any interview relating to the present case or any other case in which he is appearing. It is common that some of the practising members of the Bar fall prey to the press and media when microphones are placed before them, and they must always be aware of the rights of the victim and should be loath to give interviews or participate in social media discussions with reference to the cases being handled by them. 8. In any event, as already found, it can be seen that there was no intention to commit the offence. On a wholesome reading of Section 23, it can be seen that the primary ingredients are the disclosure of the identity of the child or the commission of any act against the child, thereby lowering the reputation of the child or infringing the child's privacy. 9. Since the said elements are missing in the present video, I am of the view that the offence punishable under Section 23(4) of the Act is not made out. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.3073 of 2024 and CRL OP Nos.21673 of 2023 and 14637 of 2026 __________ Page6 of 8 10. In view thereof, Crl.O.P.Nos.21673 of 2023 and 14637 of 2026 stand allowed. The FIR in Crime No.180 of 2023 shall stand quashed. It is submitted that the final report has also been filed in Spl.S.C.No.53 of 2024 on the file of the learned Mahila Court, Udagamandalam, and the same shall also stands quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, there was only a miscommunication, and there was no wilful intention to disobey the order of this Court. Accordingly, this Contempt Petition is also closed. 20-07-2026 Neutral Citation : Yes/No jas https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.3073 of 2024 and CRL OP Nos.21673 of 2023 and 14637 of 2026 __________ Page7 of 8 To 1.The Superintendent of Police, The Nilgiris District, The Nilgiris. 2.The Inspector of Police, Ooty Town Police West, Nilgiris District. 3.Mrs.Meena Kumari The Inspector of Police, G1 Nagar West Police Station, The Nilgiris. 4.The learned Mahila Court, Udagamandalam. 5.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.3073 of 2024 and CRL OP Nos.21673 of 2023 and 14637 of 2026 __________ Page8 of 8 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. jas Cont.P.No.3073 of 2024 and CRL.OP Nos.14637 and 21673 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.15044 of 2023 20-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis