The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENI\/ \S RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2975 ot 2O2 DATE:28.11.2O25 Between: Shaik Faheemullah AND Pe tit oner/ accused The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Telangana At Hyderabad and another :ORDER: Respondcnts This Crirninal Petition has been hled u r der Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 197.3 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner/accused seeking 1 I quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2OOS of 2O2I on thr: file ol the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class. Nizamabad, for the oflences ttnder Sections 5O4 and 385 rr ' the Indian Penal Code, 186O (for short,'the IPC,).

2. Brief facts of the case: 2.1. Respondent No.2 fiIed a complaint stat.: rg that the petitioner identifred hirnself as Dr. F aheen., has been posting highly offensive, insulting, derogatory, rrovocative, false, baseless, highly objectionable, unfound< C, abusive, 2 olrtrageous and defamatory comrnents against him, his old age mother and father over the social rnedia i.e, WhatsApp group of Nizarnabad Icon of RS & Awazkhan Momin tirnes Group on 07 .O5.2O21 , 09 .O5.2O21 , 27 .O5.2O21 and 29.05.2021 rvith an ill intention to darnage his reputation and assassinate his and his parents character among the general public with an iniension to collcct huge money frorn him. Previously, the petitioncr has posted these types of comrnents against sorne of the people in the Facebook and cornprornised by taking huge amou.nt frorn them. Hence, prayed to tal<e necessary actiort.

2.2. Basir.g on the said cornplaint, tl-re police registered a case in Crirne No.184 ol 2021 of Nizamabad Town-I Police Sstation for the offences r.rnder Scctions 5O5 and 5O7 IPC. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation hled a ctrarge sheet and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 5O4 and 345 IPC and nrrrnbered it as C.C.No.2OO8 of 2O2t. Aggrieved by the sarne, ttre petitioner hled the present crirninal petition seeking to quash the said proceedings.

3. Heard Mr. A.M. Qureshi, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Mohamrned Rahail Ahrned, learned 4 \'l \.] ingredients for the said offences are not a t lracted. Hence, - the continuation of the proceedings against ttre petitioner is a clcar abusc of the process of law.

4.3. In sr.rpport of his contention, he I elied upon the judgment of the Honble Suprerne Court n Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Governmetn of NCT of DeltL: r.

5. Subrnissions of learned counsel :or respondent No.2

5.1. Per contra, learned counsel for 1( spondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner has pc { ted derogatory messages against respondent No.2 and his parents in WhatsApp groups on O7.O5.2O27, 09.O5.2( 21, 25.07 .202t and 29.O5.2O2 1 and defarned them. Tir rre are specific allegations leve1led against ttre petitioner to attract the ingredients for the offences under Sectio : s 5O4 and 385 IPC. He further subrnitted that Section 6(i A of IT Act was struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme t' rurt in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India2. Hence, tLr contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner tlr rt if any offence cornmitted by the petitioner cornes withirL the purview of ' lzotz; z scc ra ' (2015) s scc 1 5 Section 66,4. of the IT Act not for the penal offences is not tenable under law.

5.2. He fr.rrther submitted that the grounds which are raised by the petitioner are disputed facts and the same have to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after full-fledged tria-l and the petitioner is not entitled for seeking to quash the proceedings. Analvsis: 6. Having considered the rival sr-rbmissions rnade by the respective parties and after perr-rsal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 5O5 and 5O7 IPC and Section 66-,4. of IT Act. In the said cornplaint, respondent No.2 has rnade specihc aliegation against the petitioner that he posted highly offensive, insr-rlting, derogatory, provocative, false, baseless, highly objectionable, t.nfounded, abusive, olrtrageous ald defamatory cornments against respondent No.2 and his parents over the social rnedia i.e, WhatsApp group of Nizamabad Icon of RS & Awazkhan Mornin tirnes Group on 07 .O5 .2021 , 09 .OS .2O2I , 27 .OS .2O2t and 29 .OS .2O2 1 with an ill intention to damage his reputation. x- 6

7. It is a-lso stated that respondent No. I has never met the petitioner and with an intention tc, collect of huge amount frorn hirn and previously also t r 3 petitioner has posted these type of comments on sorne < ther people and compromised by taking huge amounts I orn them. The petitioner witfr an intention to defarne resp >ndent No.2 and his family rnernbers, he sent WhatsApp rnessages and Facebook posts by using derogatory rem2 rks against him and hrs family mernbers.

8. The record further reveals that - re Investigating Officer alter recording the statements of IJI s.l ar'd 2 under Section 161 ol the Cr.P.C., came to a co r:lusion that the petitioner posted derogatory and defarr.i -tory cornrnents against respondent No.2 on 07.O5.2At l, 09.O5.2O21,

27.O5.2O21 and 29.05.2021 filed the charge sheet for the olfences under Sections 5O4 and 385 II' l. The learned Magistrate took cognizance for the afores,i id offences and issued surnmons against the petitioner.

9. The core contention of the learned S: rior Corlnsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not an ldrninistrator in WhatsApp group and he is only a nr:rnber and the 7 allegations made in the complaint does not attract is concerned, there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint that the petitioncr sent messages in socia-l media by using derogatory words against respondent No.2 as well as his parents

10. It is relevant to rnentioned that to constitute the offence, defamation requires a person to rnake some imputation concerning any other person such imputation mr.rst be rnade either with an intention or knowledge having a reason to believe that such an imputation will harrn the reputation of the person against whom the imputation is made. The impr-rtation cor-rld be by words, either spoken or written, or by rna-king signs or visible represen tations. Imputation could be either made or published I I . In the case on hand, there is a specific allegation against the petitioner in the complaint that he posted derogatory words against respondent No.2 and his parents According to the cornplaint, the petitioner with an intention to defarne respondent No.2 and his farnily mernbers sent messages in social media.

12. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned 8 Senior Counsel that sending messages t - rough WhatsApp groups, il any, the said allegations attract he offence under Section 66A IT Act only and the said A.ct is a special enactment and under Section 81 of Act thr re is a overriding effect, hence, the initiation of the proceec i -rgs for the penal provisions under Section 5O4 IpC is a,lso r ot tenable under law on the ground that the Hon,lcle Ape> Court in Shreya Singhal supra declared Section 6rr A IT Act is unconstitutional and violative of Articlr 119(1)(a) of the Constitulion of India and stmck down thr: said Section 66,4 of IT Act.

13. In Sharat Babu Digumarti sLrl) a, the Hon,ble Suprerne Court held that cases invoh j -rg obsccnity in electronic lorm are completely covered bv I ections 67 , 67 -A and 67-ll of the Information Technologv Act. Section 79 gives protection to intermediaries lil,: social medra platforms, but in Shreya Singhal sur_ ra,, the Hon,l:le Supreme Court clarifred that intermediarie s cannot be held responsible for content posted by users ur less they receive a court order or government notice teili : 3 them that the content is unlawful. Only after such .,zrr tual knowledge', they are required Lo remove it; otherwisc thev cannot be 9 proseclrted. The Hon'ble Suprerne Court a_ls.o explained that Sections 67 , 79 and 81 forms a cornplete legal scherne, and because Section 81 gives the IT Act priority over the IpC, the IT Act must be applied wherever there is a conflict. Therefore, if the allegation is about obscenity in an electronic record, the case rnust be filed only under the IT Act and not under Section 292 lP.c. Since no offence under Section 67 was found in that case, the Court quashed the proceedings under Section 292 IpC. However, this j udgrnent has no application to the present case, as the allegations here do not relate to obscenity or sexually explicit content but to derogatory and defarnatory staternents rnade against respondent no. 2 and his family members on WhatsApp and Facebook. Such imputations fall within the realm of defarnation and insult under the IPC, and not within ttre specialized obscenity provisions of the IT Act; hence, the principle of exch.rsivity laid down in the above said judgment cannot aid the petitioner.

14. It is already stated supra, that there are specilic allegations are made in the cornplaint and hnal report that the petitioner sent rnessages in social rnedia by r. sing derogatdryfwords against respondent No.2 and his parents. 10 Whether the petitioner has comrnitted ttL, . offence or not, the same has to be decided by the trial O ll. rt after a fi-r1l- fledged trial only and the salne cannot b : decided. in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

15. It is very much relevant to rnent:r n that in Sau. Karnala Shiwaji Pokarnekar w. The State rr I Maharashtra & Ors.s, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that ttrr: inherent powers lrnder Section 4a2 Cr.P.C. has to _ 3 exercised in exceptional cases sparingly, with caution, only to prevent ablrse of process or to secllre the ends : I justice; and it carnot be invoked to weigh evirlence or stifle a genuine prosecution, but may be applied where tl e allegations in the cornplaint, taken at face vah-re, do not I .sclose the ba.sic ingredients of any offence. The case on rand is not the rarest of rare cases to exercise powers of t ris Court r.rnder Section 4A2 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2OO8 of 2O21. \6. For the loregoing reasons, this Cour t does not hnd any ground to qt.rash the proceedings ir': C.C.No.2OOS of 2O2 I against I he petitioner. 3 lzotsy r+ scc :so 11

17. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Hou,ever, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of ttre case, the presence of the petitioner in C.C.No.2OOa of 2O2l is dispensed with, unless his presence is specifically required subject to the condition that the petitioner shall represent through his counsel on each and every date of hearing. In case of non_appearance of the petitioner on ttre specific date so fixed by the trial Court for his appearance, the tria-l Court is entitled to proceed with the rnatter, in accordance with law. It is needless to observe that any of the observations made in ttris order are only for the purpose of deciding this case and the trial Court shall decide the matter basing upon the evidence, which is going to be adduced by either of the parties, in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/- S..MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/.^g SECTION OFFICER \ To,

1. The 1"t Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nizamabad 2. The Station House Officer, Town-l police Station, Nizamabad District. 3. One CC to Sri Mohd Rahail Ahmed, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana (OUT) 5. Two CD Copies BJLB EA-. HIGH COURT JSR,J DATED:.2811112025 ORDER {Y l i 1 EL4 .\\" L\) , ,Y/ \J(a )i t: U. \ I I CRLP.No.2975 ol 2022 s Sti *HOH CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED I $-- ? \(" \> ')-)