The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the C.C.No. 420 o'f 2022 on the file of the Honourable 1st Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad against the petitioner accused. l.A. NO: 1OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to STAY aI further proceedings against the petition.r , accused incruding arrest and appearance in connection with c.c.No. 420 of 2r;2 0n the fire of the Hon'ble 1st Additionar Judiciar Magistrate of First crass at r izamabad pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing tf _. Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments r t Mr. A.M. eureshi, Senior counser representing Sri M.HAMMED RAHATL AHMt: ), Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr M Vivekananda Reddy, Asst. pubric pro; rcutor on beharf of the Respondent No.1 and Ms. N. Srushman Reddy Advocaie appearing for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO CRIMINAI PETITION No. 11O79 of2022 DATE:28.11.2O25 Between: Shaik Faheemullah AND ... Petitioner/accused The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature of Telangana At Hyderabad and another :ORDER: -Respondents This Crirnina,I Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner/ accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.42O of 2022 oo the hle of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, for the offence under Section 5OO of the Indial Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC').

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. Respondent No.2 filed a private cornplaint under Section 2OO of the Cr.P.C. on 13.1.1.2019 stating rhat the petitioner, who is a practicing advocate, circulated several defarnatory statements against him on social rnedia 2 \- \ .t\ \ 4i:r-td .t \] .i'.1 - platforms, such as, Facebook ald WhatsAl I r, by stating "Mahek hotel, Niz.amabad Ek chindi chor brr ker hai 15 years pahelc Ek Beggar Tha Wo Saala N : arnabad mc. Gareeboko ernd Walkf Board lands framd 1r ansaction se hotel open karke Aaj Hurn Jaisa Nizamabad [' e paash local peoples 1<o bolra ke Wo bada Hai Bolkar". Further, the racebook o11 petitioner postecl another message on

1.2.O9.2O 19, whereby the petitioner warned 1f c youth to be aware of chindi chor brokers of hotel Malr:k Nizambad, who are doing pairawi in police station, and l: also made a Facebook post hinting that he was born to a )i:ostitutc and become a Ieader and that there is a drr.rg nr rha in Mahek Hotel, which belongs to his brother. The r: alicious posts made on F'accbook and WhatsApp rave caused immeasurable loss of reputation and defanr:d l-ris mother as a prostitute . Hence, prayed to take neces i rry acti<ln.

2.2. Basing on the said pri'rate complair, , the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrat:, Nizarnabad, has taken cognizance lor the offence und: - Section 5OO oIPC and issued summons to the petitionerl. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present cr rnirlal petition 3 seeking to qr.ash the said proceedings in C.C.No.42O of 2022.

3. Heard Mr. A.M. eureshi, learned Senior Cor-rnsel representing Mr. Mohamrned Rahail Ahmed, learned corlnsel for the petitioner, and Ms. N. Srushman Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr. M Vivekananda Reddy, Iearned Assistant public prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 State 4- Submissions of petitioner: learned Senior Counsel for ttre

4.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed arry offence and he was falsety implicated in the present crime. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint atleging that the petitioner sent messages in WhatsApp group by using defamatory words. The learned Magistrate straight away took cognizance for the offence under Section 5OO IPC, even without referring for investigation to the police, especia-liy the offence under Section 5OO IPC does not attract. 4 .2. He further subrnitted that the petitioner is not an administrator of WhatsApp group. However, respondent No.2 implieated the petitioner as an accused. Even 4 .f'*r - ..,] according to the allegations Ievelled against he petitioner in the complaint, the said allegations attrac I the offence under Section 66-A of the Inforrnation Tr < hnoiogz Act, 2OOO (for short, 'lT Act') only. However, re; rondent No.2 hled the compiaint for the offence under Sr'r tion 5OO IPC and the same is not permitted under law.

4.3. He also submittcd that with the very sat.e allegations, respondent No.2 lodged police complaint or O1.06.2021. Basing on thc said complaint, Crirne No.181 of 2O2l was registered lor thc offences under Sections 5Cl and 5O7 IPC and Section 66-A of IT Act and the Inves . gating Officer after conducting investigation f-rled a final ep<>rt for the offence under SecLions 5O4 and 3a5 IPC ar d cleleted the offence rlnder Scction 66 A IT Act. Hen< t , the present complaint proceedings in C.C.No.420 of '.',O22 are not permissible undcr law and it amor:nts tc abrlse of the process of law.

4.4. lt support of his contention, he rt l.ed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Governrnetn of NCT of Delhi t (2017) 2 scc 18 5

5. Srrbrnissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2

5.1. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner has posted derogatory messages against respondent No.2 in WhatsApp group and also defamed the mother of respondent No.2 by stating that she is a prostitute. There are specilic allegations levelled against the petitioner to attract the ingredients under Section 5OO IPC. He further submitted that Section 66-A of IT Act was struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India2. Hence, the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that if any offence comrnitted by the petitioner comes within the purview of Section 66,4. of the IT Act not for the penal offences is not tenable under law.

5.2. He further submitted that the grounds which are raised by the petitioner are disputed facts and the sarne have to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial and the petitioner is not. entitled for seeking to quash the proceedings. 'z (201s) s scc 1 I 6 Analvsi s: 6. Having considered the rival submissio. s made by the respective pa|ties and aftcr perusal of the ma terial available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 flled a private complaint invoking thc provisions of Sectiott 2OO of Cr.P.C. on the file of the I Additional Judicial Ma: strate of First Class, Nizamabad, against the petitioner I rr the offence under Section 5OO IpC. In the said compii i tt, respondent No.2 has rnade specific allegation that the pr titioner posted derogatory remarks against respondent No I in WhatsApp group stating that respondent No.2 is doin6 llegal criminal activities in his Hotel, nameiy Mehak Ho-, 1, Nizarnabad. The said hotel is operated by the brothel of respondent No.2 and other family members. He also rosled another messagc on Facebook on 12.O9.2019 agar st respondent No.2 that he is doing pairawi in police station, he is blackrnailing the people, hc was born tc a prostitute, became a leader and there is a drug mafra r, Mahek Hotel. The said WhatsApp messages and Facr:b r rk posts were sent through the mobile number of the petiti,,ner.

7. It is also stated that respondcnt No.2 tas never ever met the petitioner any point of time in his . le and he has -\. 7 never interacted with him. The petitioner with an intention to defarne respondent No.2 and his farnily members, he sent WhatsApp messages and Facebook posts by using derogatory remarks against him and his farnily rnembers including his mother that she is a prostitute. B. The record further revea_ls that the learned Magistrate after following the due procedure and after recording the statement of respondent No.2 and others has taken cognizance for the oflence r.rnder Section 5OO IpC and issued surnmons against the petitioner.

9. The core contention of the learned Senior Counsel for ttre petitioner that the petitioner is not an adrninistrator in WhatsApp group and he is only a rnernber and the allegations rnade in the complaint does not attract defamation as defined under Section 4gg IpC and ingredients of Section 5OO IpC a_lso not attracted are concerned, there are specilic allegations levelled against the petitioner in the compiaint that the petitioner sent messages in WhatsApp group as weli as Facebook by using derogatory words against respondent No.2 as well as his farnily members including his mother. d !- \ 8 1O. It is relevant to mention that to constit - le the offence' defamation requires a person to make sor le imputation concerning any other person such imputz tior-r must be made either w"ith an intention or knowJe dge having a reason lo believe that such an imputatiol will harm the reputation of the person against whom th: imputation is made. The imputation couid be by words, r: ther spoken or written, or by making signs or visible ':presentations' Imputation could be either made or publish r 1' In the case on hand, there is a sp t ci fic allegation 1 l. against the petitioner in the complain t thert he used and his farniiy derogatory words against responde nt No ' " members including hris mother and the v' itten messages were forwarded and circulated by Lh c petitioner in WhatsApp group and also posted in the fiz cebook as well' According to the complaint, the petitionerr ith an intention to defame respondent No.2 sent messaFl( s in WhatsApp groups as well as Facebook.

12. Insofar as the other contention rais< r by the learned Senior Cou.nsel that sending messages th r ough WhatsApp groups or Facebook, if any, the said alleg ; -ions attract the oflencetrf,der Section 66A IT Act only anr tLrc said Act is a -7 9 special enactrnent and under Section g 1 of Act there is a overriding effect, hence, the initiation of ttre proceedings for the penal provisions under Section 5OO IpC is also not tenable r.nder law on the ground that the Hon,ble Apex Court in Shreya Singhal supra declared Section 66_,4, IT Act is Lrnconstitutional and violative of Article 1 19( 1)(a) of the Constitution of India and struck down the said Section 66,4' of IT Act

13. In Sharat Babu Digurnarti supra, the Hon,lcle Suprerne Court held that cases involving obscenity in electronic forrn are completely covered by Sections 67, 6Z_A and 67-8 of the Information Technolog,, Act. Section 79 gives protection to intermediaries like social rnedia platforms, but in Shreya Singhal supra, the Hon,ble Sr.rprerne Court clarified that intermediaries cannot be held responsible for content posted by r.rsers unless they receive a collrt ord.er or governrnent notice telling them that the content is unlawful. Only after such ,.actua_l knowledge,, they are required to remove it; otherwise, they cannot be prosecuted. The Hon'ble Supreme Cor-rrt also explained that Sections 67, 79 arid 81 forms a cornpiete legal scheme, and because Section 81 gives the I'l Act priority over the IpC, 10 '.. I \t \ the IT Act must be applied wherever tl r rre is a conflict. Thereforc, il the allegation is about ,bsr:enity in an electronic record, the case must be filed c niy under the IT Act and not under Section 2g2 IpC. Sinct no ollence t.rnder Scction 67 was found in that case, the C r urt quashed the procecdings under Section 2g2 IpC However, this judgment has no application to the prc j rnt casc, as thc allegations her-e do not relate to obsc,_- rity or sexually explicit contcnt but to derogatory i nd defamatory statements made against respondent no. ) and his tarnily members on WhatsApp and Facebook. Sj rch imputations fall within the rea,im of defamation anci ; rsult under the IPC, and not within the specialized obsccr try provisions of the IT Act; hence, the principle of excrusrr rty laid dorvn in the above said judgrnent cannot aid the pet tioner. It is relevant to mentioned that in Gr ogle India pvt. t4. Ltd. v. Visakha Industries3 , the Hon'lclc Suprerne Court held that publication of defamatory rnrL erizrl on digrtal platforms attracts liability r.rnder Sectio _ s a99_5OO IpC when the imputation is communicated r( others and is capable of injuring the reputation of the :r lgrieved person. ' 12ozc1 + scc t oz -7. 11 The Court clarifred that the mode of dissernination whether physical or electronic is immaterial, and once a person intentionally publishes reputation-harming content, criminal defarnation stands prima facie established.

15. Fr-rrther, it is relevant to mention that in pramod Shivashankar v. Vaishnavia, the Karnataka High Court reiterated that abusive, derogatory, or false staternents made on social media or shared through oniine accounts accessible to others constitute "publication" under Section 499 IPC. The Corlrt observed that digital circulation of defarnatory content whether by words, insinuation, or portrayal arnounts to defamation if it tends to lower the reputation of the person concerned in the eyes of the public. 1 6. It is already stated supra, that there are specihc allegations rnade in the complaint and PWs. 1 to 3 in their statements also specihcally stated that the petitioner had I I circulated derogatory words or remarks aga-inst respondent No.2, his farnily and his old age mother, in a WhatsApp group comprising multiple members and also Facebook. Whether the petitioner has cornmitted the offence or not, ,\- o 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 20758 ),2 .-+r --\ \ l I ..l has to be decided by the trial Court after ir ful1,fledged trial only and the sarne cannot be decided in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 17 . It is very much relevant to ment ( n that in Sau. Karnala Shiwaji Pokarnckar w. The State ,r I Maharashtra & Ors.s, the l{on'ble Apex Court held that th,: inhcrcnt powcrs under Section 4a2 Cr.P.C. has to i c exercised in cxceptional cases sparingly, with caution, only to prevcnt abuse of process or to secure the ends < f jr-rstice; and rt calnot be invoked to weigh evidence or sLifle a gcnuine prosecution, but may be applied wherr: :.1 re zrllegations in t1-ie complaint, taken at face value, do not c isclose thc basic ingredients of any offence. The case <;n hand is not the rarest of rare cases to exercise powers of .his Court under Section 4a2 of Cr.P.C. to quash thc proceedings in C.C.No.42O of 2022. 1 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Cor r .t does not lind any ground to quash the proceedings ; L C.C.No.42O of 2022 against the petitioner. s (201e) 14fcr,3so 7 13 l9- Accordingly, the crirninal petition is dismissed. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstalces of the case, the presence of the petitioner in C.C.No.42O of 2022 is dispensed with, unless his presence is specifically required subject to the condition that the petitioner shall represent through his cot.nsel on each and every dafe of hparing. In case of non-appearance of the petitioner on the specific date so frxed by the trial Court for his appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. It is needless to observe that any of the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this case and the trial Court sha_ll decide the rnatter basing upon the evidence, which is going to be adduced by either of the parties, in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, sha,li stand closed \ SD/. S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad' 2. The SHO, PS Town-|, Nizamabad. 5. o"" cclb snr. rrlonnuuED RAHAIL AHMED Advocate^[oPUC] ;. o;; cc io snt PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies GE ?s- HIGH COURT JSRJ DATED:2811112025 % u- ?arro s CS A + ORDER CRLP.No.11079 of 2022 DISMISSING THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS (p- I6 l.l 2\