Madurai Bench Directs Dindigul Police to Register FIR Over Morphed Images of Woman Working in Singapore

The Madras High Court's Madurai Bench ordered the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Rural, to verify a complaint, register an FIR if cognisable offences are disclosed, and preserve digital evidence within four weeks.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, on 8 June 2026, disposed of a criminal writ petition filed by R. Ramesh Kumar, directing the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Rural, to act on his complaint dated 20 March 2026. The complaint alleged that photographs of his sister — employed as a housekeeper in Singapore — had been morphed into obscene images and videos, circulated through Instagram and other social media accounts, and that the private respondents had demanded money for deleting the content. Justice L. Victoria Gowri, sitting singly, held that the victim's physical absence from India could not dilute the duty of Indian law enforcement when the complainant, family members, accused persons, and part of the cause of action were all connected to the territorial jurisdiction of the Dindigul police.

The Complaint Before the Court

Ramesh Kumar is the brother of Nithya, who works in Singapore. His case was that Nithya's photographs were morphed and obscene or nude images and videos were created and posted through multiple social media accounts, including an Instagram account allegedly created in the name “Nithya23319”. The family, described as economically struggling, had approached the family of the private respondents after identifying their involvement, but the alleged acts continued.

The fifth respondent, Manikandan, is alleged to have contacted Ramesh Kumar by mobile phone and demanded money for deleting the morphed content. When the demand was refused, the private respondents are alleged to have continued uploading and circulating the images and videos. Ramesh Kumar says he lodged complaints before the police and the District Collector, but no effective action was taken on his complaint of 20 March 2026. That inaction prompted the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a mandamus to the second respondent to act.

Statutory Provisions Invoked

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr P. Manikandan, submitted that the complaint disclosed cognisable offences and that the police were duty-bound to register an FIR. He identified Sections 66C, 66D, 66E, 67, and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as potentially attracted, depending on the materials collected during enquiry. He also pointed to provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 covering sexual harassment, stalking, insult to the modesty of a woman, criminal intimidation, and extortion.

Counsel pressed that immediate action was necessary not only for FIR registration but also for preservation of digital evidence, freezing of offending URLs and accounts, securing subscriber details, and preventing further circulation. He argued that police inaction in such a case would amount to constitutional indifference and defeat the purpose of cyber law enforcement.

The Government Advocate for the official respondents submitted that the complaint would be considered in accordance with law. The second respondent would verify the complaint, examine digital materials, ascertain offending account details, and take appropriate action under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. If cognisable offences were disclosed, an FIR would be registered.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Victoria Gowri framed the core question as whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction to the second respondent to act on the complaint of 20 March 2026 alleging morphing, creation and circulation of obscene images and videos, and a demand of money for their deletion.

The court observed that in cyber offences, delay is often fatal to evidence. Digital footprints are fragile: URLs may disappear, accounts may be deleted, and IP logs may be overwritten. Prompt preservation of digital evidence was therefore described as not merely procedural but as substantive justice.

The bench rejected any characterisation of the complaint as a family grievance or social media misunderstanding. If the allegations were true, the matter disclosed a serious cyber offence involving violation of privacy, attack on womanly dignity, online sexual exploitation, and possible extortion. The court held that the victim's employment in Singapore and her physical absence from India did not reduce the obligation of the Dindigul police, because the complainant, family members, accused persons, digital access, threat calls, and part of the cause of action were all alleged to be within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent police.

On the scope of mandamus jurisdiction, the court was clear that it was not conducting a roving enquiry into the truth or falsity of the complaint. However, where a complaint prima facie disclosed serious cognisable offences, Article 226 jurisdiction could be exercised to ensure that the statutory authority performed its statutory duty.

The court also addressed the nature of the injury. The grievance was not only that no FIR had been registered; the offending content continued to be available and circulated, causing continuing injury. The remedial response therefore had to include not only penal action but also immediate steps for digital evidence preservation and content removal.

The bench directed that the second respondent must not mechanically close the complaint as a petition enquiry. The complaint had to be examined in light of all materials furnished by the petitioner, including screenshots, URLs, account names, phone numbers, call records, transaction demands, and messages. The court added: “The dignity of a woman cannot be left at the mercy of a fake profile.”

Directions Issued

The court issued nine specific directions on disposing of the writ petition:

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul Rural (second respondent), was directed to conduct an immediate verification of the materials furnished by the petitioner against the complaint of 20 March 2026. If the complaint disclosed any cognisable offence, an FIR was to be registered forthwith under the appropriate provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The second respondent was directed to secure from the petitioner all available digital materials, including screenshots, URLs, profile links, account names, phone numbers, call details, messages, and any proof of the demand for money. Immediate steps were also required for preservation of electronic evidence, including account details, IP logs, subscriber information, and other relevant digital records from the concerned social media and intermediary platforms.

If offending morphed or obscene content was found to be available online, the second respondent was directed to take steps for its removal or blocking through the competent authority and in accordance with law. The second respondent was further directed to record the statement of the petitioner and, if feasible, the statement of the victim through an appropriate lawful mode, including video conferencing or a consular or official channel if required.

The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District (first respondent), was directed to monitor the progress of the action taken by the second respondent, given the nature of the allegations and the vulnerability of the victim and her family.

The entire exercise was to be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The court made clear that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations against the private respondents and that investigation was to proceed independently, fairly, and strictly in accordance with law.

Order

W.P.Crl.(MD) No.2027 of 2026 was disposed of on 8 June 2026 with the nine directions set out above. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the allegations against the private respondents.