The Madras High Court on Wednesday directed the cyber crime cell under the Central Crime Branch of Chennai city police to register a First Information Report (FIR) against actor Kamal Haasan if any cognizable offence was made out in a complaint lodged by an advocate clerk. The petitioner has objected to one of the actor’s tweets doubting the efficacy of nilavembu kashayam , a herbal concoction promoted by the State Health Department for treating dengue.
Justice M.S. Ramesh passed the order on a petition filed by G. Devarajan of Perambur here. Treating the petition filed against the actor like any other petition seeking a direction to register a FIR, the judge passed his usual order directing the police to follow the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the famous Lalita Kumari’s case (2013) and register a case forthwith only if any cognizable offence had been made out on the face of the complaint. If the compliant does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence on the face of it, then the police were directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry within 15 days to ascertain whether such offence had been made out.
“If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered, if not already registered or closed. If the preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, the disclosure report must be recorded along with the reasonings and a copy of the same shall be furnished to the complainant within one week. All information relating to cognizable offences whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading an inquiry must be reflected in the general diary/station diary/daily diary of the respondent police station,” the judge ordered.
In his petition, Mr. Devarajan had accused the actor of tweeting such anti-government opinions possibly because of his “jealousy or aversion” towards Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami and with the intention of instigating “a big anti-government revolt.” Contending that the government suppressess, with an iron hand, voices that are raised against the government, the petitioner wondered why was the actor not being taken to task for his “unnecessary comments.”
