In a notable ruling aimed at curbing casual closure of sensitive investigations, the Madras High Court has held that a police report labelling a case as “undetected” does not conclude the investigation and cannot be treated as final. The Court has directed the police to reopen and complete the investigation within three months in a case involving a Facebook post allegedly insulting Lord Krishna.
Learn how Legalspace helps lawyers streamline clause generation, organise legal documents, and draft complex legal materials more efficiently.
In a notable ruling aimed at curbing casual closure of sensitive investigations, the Madras High Court has held that a police report labelling a case as “undetected” does not conclude the investigation and cannot be treated as final. The Court has directed the police to reopen and complete the investigation within three months in a case involving a Facebook post allegedly insulting Lord Krishna.
The judgment was passed by Justice K. Murali Shankar while hearing a criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The petition challenged a Magistrate's order accepting the police’s final report as “undetected” in a case concerning a social media post that allegedly offended religious sentiments.
The case originated from a complaint lodged by the petitioner alleging that on August 19, 2022, a Facebook user posted an offensive image of Lord Krishna accompanied by derogatory remarks. The petitioner stated that the content was deeply hurtful and seemed aimed at defaming Hindu gods and women, with potential to provoke religious disharmony.
An FIR was registered under:
During the investigation, the police sought details from Facebook (Meta Platforms Inc.), but were denied access unless a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) request or letter rogatory was submitted. Subsequently, without further pursuing the matter, the police filed a report marking the case as “undetected.”
The Magistrate accepted the report, recording no objection from the complainant, and closed the case—though liberty was granted to the petitioner to pursue a private complaint. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed the present revision petition.
The Court strongly criticized the casual approach of the Investigating Officer and noted that:
Justice Shankar stated that an “undetected” report is not a final report under Section 173(2) CrPC and does not terminate the investigation. Citing judicial precedent, the Court held that an “undetectable” report is merely interim in nature and cannot be accepted as a conclusion of the case.
The Court added that freedom of expression must be balanced with the duty to avoid hurting religious sentiments, especially when such actions may cause social disorder or disturb communal harmony.
This case highlights the judiciary’s growing intolerance toward mechanical investigations and premature closure of cases, especially those involving religious sentiments or online hate speech. It also serves as a reminder that digital evidence, while difficult to obtain, must be pursued with diligence, especially under the Information Technology Act and evolving cyber jurisprudence.
At Legalspace, we are witnessing increasing reliance on judicial digital forensics, free speech limitations, and the procedural interpretation of laws under the BNSS. This ruling reinforces that freedom of expression cannot extend to content that disturbs public order.
For lawyers handling similar cases, Legalspace’s AI-powered legal research tools can help track how courts are interpreting digital speech, freedom of religion, and the procedural validity of "undetected" closures.
Research+ AI – Search case laws using natural language
Matterwise+ AI – Manage all your cases with power of AI
Smart Legal Draft – Draft police complaints, revision petitions, or IT Act notices within minutes
Deep Karia is the Director at Legalspace, a pioneering LegalTech startup that is reshaping the Indian legal ecosystem through innovative AI-driven solutions. With a robust background in technology and business management, Deep brings a wealth of experience to his role, focusing on enhancing legal research, automating document workflows, and developing cloud-based legal services. His commitment to leveraging technology to improve legal practices empowers legal professionals to work more efficiently and effectively.
