The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Mr.T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner arrd Mr.Palle Nageswara Rao, learned public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 529 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings in Crime No.32 I of 2024 on the file of Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad.

3. The petitioner herein is arraigned as sole accused in the said case. The offences alieged against him are under Sections 352 and 353(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

4. Perusal of record would reveal that the said crime was 'registered by the Saifabad Police on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 on 2O.O8.2O24. In the said complaint, respondent No.2 has alleged that the petitioner 2 ., herein is holding X Account @ KTRBRS and he has tweeted on 20.O13.2024 at 72.47 P.M. and the same rs as fol.rows: "Mark my words Cheap Minister Revalth. We v:ill :lear out the trash from the surroundings of Dr-B.R-Ambedkar Secretariat the very clay we zrre lack in ofhce- Cannot expect a Delhi Ghulam like ."ou to ever :nderstand the self-respect and pride of TelangarLa. Jsing hlthy language. In front of school chiidren shows your lousy ; hinking and rude upbringing. Wishing ;rou speedy 1-realing from your mental sickness." Thus, ar:cording to respondent No.2, the af,:resaid tweet of the petitioner is highly defamatory arrd amor tnts to damagirLg the reputation of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. The petitioner defamed the Honble Chief Minis,ter by delibera,ely using the word Cheap Minister'. Furt:rer, the petitioner quoted the Honble Chief Minister as 'Delhi Ghulam', which is highly defamatory and damag;ing the reputation of not only the Hon'ble Chief Minister but also the reputation of the entire State of Telangala. It was further alleged that though the Hon'ble Chief Mirrister is working very hard for the welfare of the State of Tel,Lngana, 3 by insinuating the Hon'ble Chief Minister as .Slave of Delhi'. The petitioner damaged the reputation of the State of Telangana when the Hon'ble Chief Minister is trying to bring the foreign investors to invest thousands of crores in Hyderabad and Telangana.

5. As discussed supro., ol receipt of the said complaint, since the offences alleged against the petitioner are non- cognizable offences, the Sub-lnspector of Police, Saifabad Police Station, has submitted a requisition to the learned I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, seeking permission to register the case.

6. Vide order dated 21.O8.2024, learned Magistrate accorded permission to the Sub-Inspector of Police to register the case against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.2 for the offences under Sections 352 and 353(1) of BNS. Thereafter, Police, Saifabad Police Station, have registered the aforesaid case against the petitioner for the aJoresaid offences. The petitioner hled the present criminal petition to quash the said proceedings. 4

7. Mr.T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel l.br the petitionr:r contended t1lat the contents of' the ccrmplaint dated 20.O8.2024 lacks the ingredients of the a foresaid offences. Without considering the said contents, learned Magistrate accorded permission to the S ub-lnspector of Police, Siaifabad, to register the crime against the petitioner with one word 'permitted'. Therefore, while gralting permiss ion, learned Magistrate did not consider t he said aspects, more particularly, the complaint la<:ks , the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. The said permission granted b1' the learned Magistrate is mechanical, without any reasons. He placed reliance on the principle laid down by this Court vide order dated 26.02.20'.21 in (lriminal Petition No.3653 of 20 15.

8. Whereas, Mr.Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecul.or, contended that the proceedings are zrt crime stage. There are several aspects to be considered by the Investigzrting Offrcer during the course of invest igation. Quashing of proceedings at the threshold is impern:rissible. On completion of investigation, if ttre Investigating, Oflicer 5 comes to a conclusion that the contents of the complaint and the statements of the witnesses lack the ingredients of the aforesaid oifences, he will Iile a report in terms of Section 173(8) of Cr.p.C. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by this Court vide orders dated 04.12.2024 and L8.I2.2O24 in Crirninal petition Nos.l2327 of2023 and 5002 of2023.

9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is relevant to refer Sections 351, 352 and 353(1) of BNS and the same are extracted hereunder: '35l.Criminal intimidatioa.- Whoever threatens another by any means, with arry injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to ornit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding ttre execution of such threat, commits crirninal intirnidation. Dlplanatlon.- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section. 6 Illustratiotr: A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.

352. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace-Wtroever intentionally insnlts in a-ny rrranner, and thereby gives provocation to any person, irLtending or knowing it to be likely that such provocaLion will cause him to break the public peace, or to co:nmit ary other offence, shall be punished with imprisonrnent ol- either description for a term which may extend tc bro yr:ars, or witJr frne, or wilh both.

353. StateEents conducing to public mischief..-'(l I \I'hoever makes, publishes or circulates any staternent fa-lse information, rumour, or report, including through electronic means- (a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to ca.use, aly ofhcer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Narry or Ar Force of India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail ir his duty as such; or (b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to cornmit arty olfence against the State or against the public tranqr ility; OI (c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or communitlz of persons to comrnit any oflence against any other class or communit5r, shall be punished with imprisonment which may e:.tent to three years, or wittr hne, or with both. 7

10. As per the a-foresaid provisions, to attract the offence under Section 351 criminal intimidation the following are the ingredients: There should be a threat; i) ii) The said threat shall be intentional, so that it will cause injury to the person or to its reputation or Property; iii) There should be intention to cause alarm to the person or to cause that person to do any act which is not legally bound to do so.

11. As per Section 352 of BNS, there should be an intentional insr;lt and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it is to be likely that such provocation will cause hirn to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, shall be punishable. 1,2. To attract the offence under Section 353(1) of BNS, there should be making, publishing or circulating any statement, false information, rumour or report including through electronic means, with an intent to cause' or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public whereby any person may be 8 inducerl to commit an offence against the State or against the pubiic tranquility, etc, sha_l1 be punishable. Sections 351, 352 and 353(1) of BNS are akin to Sections :t03, S04 and 5O,l of IPC.

13. Ir: Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A,p.r, the allegatirrns leveled against the accused are that he was telling others that the Army personnel harie been commitLing atrocities on Muslims in Kashmir. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 153A and S05(2) of IPC. Or. consideration of the said facts, the Hon,l.rle Apex Court held that the common feature in both sectio::rs being promoticn of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will tretween differenl- religious or racial or language or regional groups or castes zrnd communities it is necessary that aflr,:ast two such groups or comrnunities should be involved. Merely inciting the feeling of one comrnunity or group with out aly referenc,: to any other community or group cannol attract either. of the two sections. The result of the said dis,:ussion 1997 (71 SCC 431 9 is ttrat appellant who has not done alything as against any religious, racial or linguistic or regional group or community cannot be held guilty of either the offence under Section 153A or under Section 505(2) of IpC.

74. In Asif Iqbal Naik v. State of Jammu and Kashmirz, the accused is a reputed journalist and associated with Early Times Newspaper, Jammu and Kashmir, as also with Times Now English News Channel and has broken down various stories of national importalce. He has taken screen shot of a news bite in Early Times Newspaper of Kisthwar. The offences alleged against the petitioner therein were under Sections 5O4, 505, 506 and 336 of RPC. On consideration of the said facts and placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon,ble Supreme Court, the High Cor:rt of Jammu and Kashmir held that the complainant, who was also present in the Court, denied to have lodged any complaint so as to the base the impugned FIR, secondly, SHO in his status report has also stated that the complainant had not assisted with 'z 2023 SCC Ontine J&K 65 10 the invr:stigation despite several requests and thi rdly that the District Magistrate as an Executive Magistrate was not competrlnt to issue directions for investigation of t he case. On the said three grounds, High Court of Jam mu ald Kashmir quashed the proceedings against the accused therein.

15. In Tejinder Pal Singh Bagga v. State of punjabo, the petitioner was a Spokes-person of BJp-Delhi, he gave an interview in the media criticizing Mr.Arvind Xelnwat, the Chief Minister of Delhi. Therefore, a case was registered against him for the offences under Sections 153A, 505, 505(2) and 5O6 of IPC and on examination of the facts that Punj ab rend Har5rana High Court held that the con tents of the chalge sheet lack the ingredients of the said .rffences against rhe pelitioner therein.

16. In Santanu Kumar Takri v. Gangadhar Nanda+, the al'lsg2ti66s leveled against the petitioner therein are that he address€,d issues related to prevention of cruelty to irnimals I2022 4 2022 SCC Cnline ori 391I SCC Ontine P&H 2655 1l delivered a speech stressed upon the demand of meat of the Indian cows and btrlls abroad tJrereby comrnitted an offence punishable under Section 505(2) of IPC. On consideration of the said facts, High Court of Orissa held that the contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner therein

17. In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v Union of Indias, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on a decision of 'Saskatchesan (HumaD Rights Commissionf v. Whatcott6. In the said Judgment, Supreme Court of Canada held that word "hatred" as is used in legislative provisions prohibiting hate speech. Three main prescriptions 'must be followed. First, Courts must apply the hate speech prohibition objectively. The question Courts mrrst ask is whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as exposing the protected group to hatred. Second, the legislative term "hatred" or "hatred or contempt" must be interpreted as being restricted to those extreme '(2014) I I Supreme Court Cases 477 6 (zo tg) t scn +62 t2 manifestations of the emotion described by thr: words "detesteLtion" ald 'vilihcation". This hlters out expression which, w-hile repugnant and offensive, does not il-Icite the levei of abhorrence, delegitimisation and rejection l-hat risk causing, discriminalion or other harmful effects;. Third, TribunzLls must focus their analysis on the effec:t of the expression at issue, namely whether it is likely t() expose the targeted person or group to hatred by othi:rs. The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not suf{icieht to justify ::estricting the expression, and whether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hr,rtred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to deterrnine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in rnind the legislative obje<:tives to reduce,:r eliminate discrimination.

18. In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Biharz while upholding the constitutional validity of Section 505 of IPC has obsewed: ' ,qtR 1962 sc 955 l3 'It is only necessary to add a few observations witl. respect to the constitutionality of Section 5O5 of the Indian Pena.t Code. With reference to each of the three clauses of the section, it will be found that the gravamen of the offence in making, publishing or circulating any statement, rumour or report (a) with intent to cause or which is likely to cause any member of the Army, Naly or Air Force to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his dutlr as such; or (b) to cause fear or alam to the public or a section of the public which may induce the commission of an offence against the State or against public trarquility; or (c) to incite or which is likely to incite one class or community of persons to comrnit an , offence against any other class or communit5r. It is malifest that each one of the constituent elements of the offence under Section 505 has reference to, a.rrd a direct effect on, the security of the State or public order. Hence, these provisions would not exceed the bounds of reasonable restrictions on the right of freedom of speech and expression. It is clear, therefore, that clause (2) of Article 19 clearly saves the section from the vice of unconstitutionality. "

19. In Kumar Vishwas v. State of Rrnjabs, the petitioner therein, during Vidhan Sabha elections, gave a video interview, leveling imputations about the involvement of Mr.A;ind Kejriwal, Chief Minister of Delhi, witJl certain nefarious and anti-social elements. On the complaint 8 2022 SCC Online P&H 2637 14 lodged by the District Collector, a case was rr,:gistered against the petitioner therein for the offence;s under Sections 153, 153A, 505, 505(2), 116, 143, 147, a)23,341 arld 1208 of IPC and Section 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 195 1. On examination of the facts therein, the High Court of Punjab and Harayana held that the ::ontents are lacking ingredients of the aforesaid offences agzrinst the peLitioner.

20. In the light of the said principle, the contenl s of the aforesaid offences and coming to the facts of the case, it is the spec:ihc case of the petitioner that he is not maintaining X Account @ KTRBRS. Further, he is denying the t'"\'eet and the san:.e is not his account. Respondent No.2 has added certain things to the said alleged tweet and k;,dged a complai:nt. Respondent No.2 is not the victim to lodge a complafu:rt. Respondent No.2 did not explain with rr,:gard to the alleging breach of peace and the contents of Section 503 of U'C to constitute an offence in terms of the <_:riminal intimidation. 15

21. It is also relevart to note that in the said complaint dated 20.08.2024, respondent No.2 alleged that by t1.e said tweet, the petitioner defamed the reputation of the Honble Chief Minister deliberately. If it amounts to defamation, respondent No.2 or the victim has to take steps il accordalce with the procedure laid down under the law. Respondent No.2 can't lodge ttre said complaint dated 2O.Oa.2O24 with Police, Saifabad police Station, to take action against the petitioner herein.

22. In State of Haryana v. Bhajau Lals, the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rear cases. While examining a compiaint, quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embaik upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down certain e. 1teozl supp. I scc 335 t6 guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under SecLion - 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under: '(1) Where the allegations made in the first informalion report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their errtirety do not prima facie constitute any oifence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the irrst information report arld other materials, if any, accompalying tIe FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of t]le Code except under an order of a Magistrate within ttre purview of Sectjon 1.55(2) of the code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in su.pport of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a nc,n-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever t7 reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a crimina-l proceeding is instituted) to the institution ald continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specif.rc provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the agglieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/ or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." t I The said principle was reiterated by *re Apex Court in catena of decisions.

23. In the light of the above discussion arrd the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions, continuation of proceedings in Crime No.321 of 2024 on the file of Saifabad Police- Station, Hyderabad, against the petitioner/accused is an abuse of process of iaw and, therefore, the \ l8 proceedings are liable to be quashed against the pr:tl1i6ns1 in exercise of powers under Section _ 4g2 of Cr.p.C.

24. Accordingly, the present Criminal petition is a-llowed ard the proceedings in Crime No.321 of 2024 on the fiie of Saifabacl Police Station, Hyderabad, are hereby c;uashed against r-he petitioner herein - accused. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if aly, 1:rending in the Criminal Petition shall stard closed. \\ To //TRUE COPYII SD/- A.V.S.P DEPUTY REGI ryAsno PTRAR \i \ SECTION OFFICER

1. The First Addi Chief Judicial Magistrate at Hyderabad 2 The Slation Hr:use Officer, Saifabad police Station, Hyderabad ' I;;":rnl",?ff! P'otu"'tor Hish court for the state of retargana at 4. One CC to SFtt. T. V RAMANA RAO, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copres l I l kul/PSl. I ,,2 HIGH COURT DATED:19/03/2025 '( c.it .t ,, kJ l- a: o <\ -'.{-Y $,l, "$, n_ 7 \, I -l ,i.-l ,?../ a) J |Ja!t\ -_..-._::j-:i., +)' i/ ORDER Crl.Petition .No.2735 ot 2025 ALLOU/lN(i l-l{L ( R t-.l,tl I i'f ION { I