Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dondapati Vijay Kumar vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 4 August, 2021
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Crl.P. No.4387 of 2021
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Office
DATE ORDER
No Note
1. 04.08.2021 LK, J
8
I.A.No.1 of 2021
Dispensed with for the present.
________
LK, J
Crl.P. No.4387 of 2021
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has taken
notice for the 1st respondent/State and requested time
to seek instructions.
Issue notice to respondent No. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to respondent No.2 by registered post with acknowledgment due and file proof of service in the Registry.
Post the matter after four (4) weeks.
________ LK, J I.A.No.2 of 2021 The allegation against the petitioner is that he posted morphed videos in social media saying that if they bring their stock to the market yard, they have to pay commission to the Chairman and other members of the Market Yard Committee and they will not get the minimum price. Based on these allegations, a case in Crime No.294 of 2021 of Mylavaram Police Station, Krishna District, is registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 505(2) and 506 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even all the allegations are taken on its value, they do not constitute any offence under Sections 505(2) and 506 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order passed by this Court in Kantamaneni Ravishankar Vs. State of A.P in W.P.No.8890 of 2020 wherein the learned Judge observed that the allegations must necessarily disclose such publication, statement or circulation of such statement containing rumour or alarming news among the public based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community. But in the absence of feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, the very registration of crime for the offence punishable under Section 505 (2) of I.P.C. is illegal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that as per the complaint, it is not the case of the complainant that the petitioner indulged in circulation of any news, which relates to hatred among the people on the basis of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community. Hence, he would submit that Section 505(2) of I.P.C has no application to the case of the petitioner.
This Court finds considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the same, there shall be stay of all further proceedings pursuant to registration of F.I.R in Crime No.294 of 2021 of Mylavaram Police Station, Krishna District, only insofar as the petitioner is concerned, until further orders.
________ LK, J AKN