The Madras High Court has quashed the criminal case against an advocate over a private act streamed by accident in a December 2021 virtual hearing, while making clear that it does not approve of his conduct and ruling only that the penal provisions invoked are not made out on the materials collected.
Chennai: The materials collected by the CB-CID did not make out the offences charged against advocate R.D. Santhanakrishnan, the Madras High Court has held, quashing the trial pending before the Mahila Court, Allikulam, Chennai, over an intimate act inadvertently streamed during a virtual hearing of the High Court in 2021 [R.D. Santhanakrishnan v. State].
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar pronounced the order on October 30, 2026, after reserving it on September 25, 2026, in a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Where the charges fell short
On Section 228 IPC, which punishes intentional insult or interruption of a public servant in a judicial proceeding, the Court found no averment or material that the petitioner intended to interrupt the hearing or knew his conduct would appear in the virtual court. Section 294(a) requires an obscene act in a public place; here the Court noted that the camera was not switched on knowingly and that no participant in the virtual hearing had complained of annoyance. It recorded that the accidental streaming was not in dispute and that the act had taken place in private.
The Tamil Nadu harassment law was also held not to be attracted, since Section 4 covers public places and the occurrence was in the petitioner’s private office.
The clip and the case
The clip began circulating on social media on December 20, 2021. It came from the online proceedings of Court Hall No. 11 of the High Court and showed a male participant in an intimate act with a woman. A Division Bench took suo motu cognizance on December 21, 2021, in criminal contempt proceedings and directed the CB-CID to register an FIR, and Crime No. 13 of 2021 was registered by the Cyber Crime Cell, CB-CID, Egmore.
The petitioner, the sole accused, was later charged under Sections 228, 294(a), 354A and 370(2) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998, and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The charge under Section 292(2)(a) IPC was dropped because the person who transmitted the video could not be traced. The woman seen in the clip is not identified in the order and is referred to as “X”.
The final report alleged that the petitioner had used the financial condition of the woman’s family, who worked as his office assistant and in domestic work, to his advantage. The petitioner argued that even taking the final report at face value no offence was made out, since the occurrence was inside his private office and he had no intention to insult or interrupt judicial proceedings.
The trafficking charge
On Section 370 IPC, the Court said the allegation of offering money, a dress and food to a woman already employed by the petitioner did not satisfy the ingredients of trafficking:
“The offence under Section 370(2) IPC, which carries a minimum rigorous imprisonment of seven years, cannot be sustained on such a bare and conclusory allegation.”
The Court also noted that the laptop seized had been sent for forensic examination, but no report had been received to conclusively establish the originator, place, time or device.
Contempt, compensation and the Bar Council
The State’s point that contempt and criminal prosecution are distinct, and that the double jeopardy bar does not strictly apply, was accepted. Even so, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would be oppressive, since the petitioner had undergone 34 days of incarceration, paid Rs 4,00,000 as compensation to “X”, been suspended by the Bar Council and purged the contempt on October 18, 2022. The Court added:
“It must be made clear that this Court does not approve of the conduct of the petitioner, an advocate, which has been described by the Division Bench in strong terms, and for which he has been dealt with by the Court in contempt jurisdiction and by his professional body. The question in this petition is only whether the specific penal provisions invoked against him are made out on the materials collected by the prosecution, and, for the reasons above, they are not.”
The petition was allowed and the proceedings in Spl.S.C. No. 326 of 2025 were quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
Why the judgment matters
The ruling keeps professional misconduct apart from criminal liability. The conduct had already drawn contempt punishment, compensation and Bar Council action, but the Court held that penal provisions must be tested on their own ingredients, such as intent for Section 228 and a public place for Section 294(a). It also marks a limit on adding a serious charge like trafficking without material for each ingredient, and is a reminder of the risks of open video links in virtual courts.
Case Title: R.D. Santhanakrishnan v. State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Crime Branch CID, Egmore, Chennai
Case No.: Crl.O.P. No. 6617 of 2026
Bench: Justice M. Nirmal Kumar, High Court of Madras
Reserved on: September 25, 2026; Pronounced on: October 30, 2026
Appearances: Advocate R.C. Paul Kanagaraj for the petitioner; Government Advocate (Crl. side) R. Rajasekaran for the State
