cannot escape by appology and deletion of post

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Reserved on :
10.7.2023
Delivered on :
14.7.2023
Coram :
The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.11494 & 12163 of 2018
Crl.O.P.Nos.5099 of 2019 & 6211 of 2021 &
all connected pending Crl.M.Ps.
S.Ve.Shekher ...Petitioner in
all the Crl.O.Ps.
Vs
1.Al.Gopalsamy, President,

17. The final report filed in Cr.No.148 of 2018 on the file of the
Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Cell, Central Crime Branch, Chennai
has been taken cognizance by the Special Court for various offences
including the one under Section 504 of the IPC.
....

225. It is true that the petitioner removed the derogatory
message from his facebook account even on the same day and he also
apologized for having forwarded the message. These acts, by
themselves, do not help the petitioner from facing the consequences
for forwarding a derogatory message. An offence has already been
committed and the petitioner cannot now escape from the offence by
merely coming up with an apology statement subsequently.
26. In cases involving a dispute between two individuals, if
immediately the offender regrets and tenders his apology for his act,
the Court may consider acting upon the same. However, in the instant
case, it is not a dispute between two individuals and the act of the
petitioner has virtually painted the entire Press and more particularly
the women Reporters with vulgar comments and when such a large
body is affected due to the act of the petitioner, he cannot be let away
just because he tendered an apology. If such an easy route is adopted,
anyone can make such statements, cause damage, subsequently
apologize for his act and get away from the action taken against him.
16/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11494 of 2018
etc. cases
27. In view of the same, the apology tendered and the
explanation given by the petitioner to the effect that he had forwarded
the message inadvertently cannot be acted upon and the criminal
proceedings cannot be quashed on that ground. For the present, the
intention of the petitioner can be gathered only from the contents of
the message that was forwarded by the petitioner. The issue as to
whether the petitioner had forwarded the message inadvertently or
not, is a matter for evidence and such a defence has to be established
by the petitioner only during the course of trial. Therefore, this Court
does not find any ground to interfere with the criminal proceedings
initiated against the petitioner. The defence taken by the petitioner has
to be established only before the Special Court, which has to decide
the same on appreciation of evidence.