Prosecutor High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S V RAIMANA, Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt. S.Madhavi, the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT..:'USTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETI Tto N No.794 of 2022 ORDER: This Criminal petition is filed under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C. by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.6 of 2022 of p.S. Karimnagar I Town, registered for the offences under Sections i53, 500, 505(2) and 506 of the Indian penal Code (for short'lPC'). 2' Heard tr/rr.S.V.Ramana, Idirned counser for the petitioner and lVlrs. S.lr/ladhavi, rearned Assistant pubric prosecutor appearing for the respondenlState. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2 Perused the record

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the BJp officiar spokesperson on 04.01 .2022 conducted a press meet at the BJp state office, Nampaily, Hyderabad and made certain remarks against the commissioner of porice and the said remarks are in the form of creating of conflict of fear atmosphere and it is stated that the petitioner has uploaded the said speech in his GSR TV Telugu youTube Channel. On the basis of the above allegations, the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint and the same was registered against the petitioner and two others for the offence under Sections .153, 500, 505(2), 506 of lpC. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a press meet 4 was conducted by accused No.1 and the proceedings of the conduct of meeting was uploaded in the GSR T V Telugu you tube channel He further contended that the said press meet of accused No l was widely telecasted in all the news channel and 'the same content was also uploaded in the GSR T V Telugu you tube channel. He further contended that relaying the proceedings of the press meet conducted by the BJP Official Spokesperson in the youtube channel would not attract the provisions of Sec 153, 5OO' 605(2)' 506 IPC'

5. He further contenied that the act of the respondents in registering a case against the petitioner would amount to curbing the freedom of press in broadcasting the press meet of the Spokesperson of a Political Party, further, no offence is committed by the petitioner to attract the provisions of the lndian Penal Code He further contended that there was no embargo or restrictions placed by the State or by the police restraining the press, T.V Channels from airing the news conference conducted by the officials Spokesperson of the party He further contended that the initiation of the criminar proceedings against the petitioner is a pure abuse of the Process of law' 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner-accused No 2 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in 3 the case. He further submits that Section 199 of Cr.P.C bars taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 500 of lPC. For the offence under Section 505(2) of lPC, sanction under Section 196(1A) of Cr.P.C. is mandatory, however, in the present case, sanction was not obtained from the competent authority. He further submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner-accused No.2 and the ingredients of offences alleged against him are not made out. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2

7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioner- accused No.2 and all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition

8. For better adjudication of lhe matter, Sections 500 505(2) of lpC, '199(1) of Cr P C and 196(1A) of Cr.P.C is extracted hereunder: "500. Punishment for defamation.- Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. S05(Z)Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between crasses.- Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumoLtr or alarmtng news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of bir7h, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or i -wilt between / / 4 different reli-gious, racial, language or regional groups or Gasles or communities, shall be punished wfth imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Secfion 199(1). Prosecution for defamation.- (1) No Couft shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the tndian penal Code (45 of 1g60) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence: Provided that where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from s/ckness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local Gusioms and manners, ought not to be compe ed to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf.

196. Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy to commit such offence. (1)No Court shall take cognizance of -(a)any offence punishable under Chapter Vl or under section 153-A, [section 295-A or sub_ section (1) of section 5051 [Substituted by Act 63 of 1980, Secflon 3, for "Section 153-8, Section 295-A or Section 505', (w.e.f. 23.9.198q.1 6f the Indian penat Code (45 of 1860), or(b)a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, or(c)any such abetment, ps is described in section 108-A of the lndian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government. [(1 -A) No Courl shall take cognizance of -(a)any offence punishable under section 153-B or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 505 of the lndian Penal Code, or(b)a criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except with the prewous sanction of the Central Government or of the State Government or of the District Magistrate.l" 9 As per Section 199 of Cr.P.C., no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of lPC, which includes the offence of defamation, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. In the present case, the aggrieved person is one V.Satyanaruyana. However, on the basis of police report of de facto complainant, who is the Sub-lnspector of Police, Ganneruvaram, criminal prosecution against the petitioner-accused No.2 was initiated. I 5 Absence of such complaint would render the prosecution as void and without jurisdiction

10. For the offence under Section 505(2) of lPC, AS per Section 196(1A) of Cr.P.C., sanction has to be obtained from the competent authority. ln the present case, no sanction as required under law was obtained for proceeding against the petitioner-accused No.2

11. Section 505(2) of IPC deals with statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. Section 'l 53 of IPC is wantonly giving provocation with the int6nt to cause a riot. Section 506 of IPC t I deals with criminal intimidation. ln the instant case, no such opinion was expressed by the petitioner-accused No.2 and there is no specific allegation against him. lnsofar as offences under Sections 153 and 506 of IPC are concerned, there are no specific allegations against the \ I petitioner-accused No.2 with regard to wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause a riot and criminal intimidation. Free speech of the citizens of this country cannot be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases, unless such speech has the tendency to affect public order. As such, the offences under Sections 153 and 505(2) of IPC are liable to be quashed.

12. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner-accused No.2 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of 'i-li 6 processofthelaw,andhence,theproceedingsagainstthepetitioner- accused No.2 are liable to be quashed

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No 2 in Crime No 6 of 2022 of P.S. Karimnagar I Town Pending miscellaneous applications, if any' shall stand closed To, Sd/- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Karimnagar 2. The Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District

3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 4. One CC to SRI S V RAMANA Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies 'lpkPSL HIGH COURT DATED:2610612025 \ \ \ 1rlf ,'(. ' ^ i t O4 AUG i\'1 ORDER CRLP.N o.794 of 2022 CRIMINAL PETITTON IS ALLOWED 5 L 1\