Karnataka High Court
Manikanth Rathod vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 28 August, 2024
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6325
CRL.P No. 200738 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200738 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MANIKANTH RATHOD S/O NARENDRA RATHOD,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: POLITICIAN,
R/O CHANDARKI ROAD, GURUMITKAL
TQ. GURMITKAL, DIST. YADGIRI-585214
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. C. JAKA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH WADI POLICE STATION,
TQ. CHITTAPUR DIST. KALABURAGI-585225
Digitally signed by NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
SHIVALEELA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ,
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI KALABURAGI BENCH-585107
Location: High
Court Of
Karnataka 2. SURYAKANT S/O MAHADEV RADDEWADI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: EX MEMBER OF MUNICIPALITY,
R/O AT DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR COLONY, WADI
TQ. CHITTAPUR DIST. KALABURAGI-585225.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R-2 SERVED BUT-UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO. 4093/2023,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHITTAPUR
AGAINST THE PETITIONER, ARISING OUT OF THE CASE REGISTERED
IN CRIME NO.51/2022 AND FILED CHARGE SHEET BY THE 1 ST
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6325
CRL.P No. 200738 of 2024
RESPONDENT WADI POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504 AND 507 OF IPC, AGAINST THE
PETITIONER TO SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND TO PREVENT
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF THE COURT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN) This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.4093/2023 pending on the file of Civil Judge & JMFC, Chittapur, arising out Crime No.51/2022 registered by Wadi Police Station and charge- sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 507 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for the respondent-State. Respondent No.2 served and unrepresented.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2/Suryakant filed first -3- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6325 CRL.P No. 200738 of 2024 information to the concerned Wadi Police Station alleging that on 15.04.2022 one Ravikumar came and gave the whatsapp message said to be web hosted and spoken by the present petitioner on 15.04.2022 wherein the petitioner abused the leader of their community in the social media abusing them in offensive and defamatory remarks, which may cause the disturbance in the public peace and tranquility and provoke the persons, who are concerned with the said leaders they may to commit offences.
4. It is also contended that the petitioner said to be abused by taking singular terms to their leader, who is also opposite party leader in Rajyasabha of Parliament Dr.Mallikarjun Kharge and also the candidate of the Chittapur constituency Sri.Priyank Kharge. Therefore, he said to be personally insulted them by taking singular words, which may cause disturbing the public peace and tranquility, which may provoke the persons to commit offences. Hence, prayed for taking action. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6325 CRL.P No. 200738 of 2024
5. On receipt of the complaint, the police find it is offence under Section 504 and 507 of IPC, which are non- cognizable offences. Hence, sent the requisition to the learned Magistrate for seeking permission under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate after receiving the application with the copy of the complaint and the document where the offensive message have been web hosted through social media took in pen-drive. The learned Magistrate after application of mind found the permission shall have to be accorded for registering case and investigate the matter. Hence, the learned Magistrate has accorded permission under Section 155(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'). Accordingly, the police registered the FIR in Crime No.51/2022 and after investigation, the police have filed the charge-sheet, which is under challenge.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously contended that the alleged offence will not be -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6325 CRL.P No. 200738 of 2024 attracted especially either under Section 504 or 507 of IPC against the petitioner, the complainant is not the victim of the alleged offence some third person filed the complaint and not the actually the said leaders stated in complaint. Even otherwise, the police have not recorded the statements of the said leaders during the investigation and victim statement not recorded by the police by examination. Such being case, either Section 504 or 507 of IPC is not attracted. He further contended that the police in the habit of filing false complaints against the petitioner in various Police Station to harass him. Even otherwise the ingredients of Section 504 of IPC is not made out in the complaint or in the statement. Therefore, the conducting proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law.
7. He has also contended that in similar case the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against the same petitioner in Criminal -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6325 CRL.P No. 200738 of 2024 Petition No.200102/2024 on 25.03.2024. Therefore, prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings.
8. The learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent/State has seriously objected the petition and contending that the order passed in the Criminal Petition No.200102/2024 is altogether different offence which is 506 of IPC, but not 504 or 507 of IPC, wherein this case the petitioner personally attacked the leaders of the particular community by using singular words with abusive words, which definitely provoke the public and the disturbance of the public peace and tranquility, which cause offences by damaging public property by indulging by hearing of the speech made by the petitioner in social media and sent for circulation. Merely the leaders are not examined that itself cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings or he has not committed any offence. The witness/CW.1, who is complainant is categorically stated he has received the speech from the whatsapp and converted into pen-drive and produced before the Court. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6325 CRL.P No. 200738 of 2024 Such being the case, the same was seized by the police and produced before the Court, which clearly reveals the said speech made by the petitioner is intentionally insult and provoked the person who break the public peace to commit any offence. Therefore, there is clear ingredients made out for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. The matter required to be trial and it cannot be quashed on technical ground. He has also contended the offence under Section 507 also attracted against the petitioner. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
9. Having heard the arguments and perused the records, which reveals that the complaint itself reveals that he received information through whatsapp message through one Ravikumar/CW.4 and on hearing the said speech where the petitioner personally attacked Dr.Mallikarjun Kharje, the opposite leader of the Rajyasabha Parliament and Member of Parliament, who is also leader of a particular community of this Kalaburagi district, the petitioner is said to be abused in filthy -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6325 CRL.P No. 200738 of 2024 language by taking singular words and insulting the leader of their community. The complainant is none other than the Former Member of the Municipality, Wadi. The speech said to be web-hosted by the petitioner on 15.04.2022. He also said to be tarnished the image by spreading that they earned rupees fifty thousand crores and also insulted his son said to be Sri.Priyank Kharge, said to be elected member of the Chittapur MLA Constituency and he shall be born in Pakistan etc. It is also reveal that the accused was involved in more than 25 cases regarding the transportation of illegal PDS rice to the other State and also involved in so many criminal cases and he has personally attacked the leaders of a particular community who is in social service of about 50 years of their life. The pen-drive said to be seized by the police which was speech made by the petitioner through video and audio.
10. On perusal of the complaint made by the complainant against the petitioner is clearly attracts -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6325 CRL.P No. 200738 of 2024 Section 504 of IPC. For ready reference the offence of 504 of IPC referred as under:
"504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.- Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fiona Shrikhande vs State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2013) 14 SCC 44, in a similar situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered Section 504 of IPC in detail and has held at paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the judgment as under:
"13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients viz. (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6325 CRL.P No. 200738 of 2024 should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC.
14. We may also indicate that it is not the law that the actual words or language should figure in the complaint. One has to read the complaint as a whole and, by doing so, if the Magistrate comes to a conclusion, prima facie, that there has been an intentional insult so as to provoke any person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, that is sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of Section 504 IPC. It is not the law that a complainant should verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of provoking the other person to commit any other offence. The background facts, circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which they are used, the person or persons to whom they are addressed, the time, the conduct of the person
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6325 CRL.P No. 200738 of 2024 who has indulged in such actions are all relevant factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504 IPC.
15. We have already extracted the relevant portions of the complaint. If they are so read in the above legal settings, in our view, a prima facie case has been made out for initiating proceedings for the offence alleged under Section 504 IPC."
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held the alleged offence under Section 504 of IPC has made out and appeal filed by the appellant in the said case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been dismissed.
12. Similarly in this case the petitioner made the speech in public and it was received through social media sent video messages stating tarnishing the image of the leader of this area who is popular and public figure having more than 50 years of political career; his image has been damaged by the petitioner by making such hate speech and also abusing his son said to be MLA or Minister presently in Karnataka State Assembly. But speaking
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6325 CRL.P No. 200738 of 2024 against the leaders and attacking personally cannot be considered as freedom of speech which is available for the petitioner under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The persons who were attacked by the petitioner is nothing but senior popular leader of the particular community in this area having a more than 50 years political career and having respected by the locality of this area including entire State and political leader of the State has been tarnished image by the petitioner by making such insult speech which is personally attacking them in the speech and it cannot be said this is a regular speech where the political speech made by him in the social media, but it is intentionally and personally attacked by defamatory words by insulting them and definitely it may cause the other public to provoke them to break the public peace and commit any other offences. If the followers took the law on their own hands or if they obstruct their own and damage the public property definitely the petitioner would be cause for that. Therefore, I am of view that the ingredient of Section 504 of IPC is clearly made out and
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6325 CRL.P No. 200738 of 2024 prima facie case is triable by the Magistrate against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC.
13. However, in regard to Section 507 of IPC, wherein it says as under:
"507. Criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication- Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication, or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years in addition to the punishment provided for the offence by the last preceding section."
14. On careful reading of Section 507 of IPC, which says whoever commits offence of criminal intimidation by anonymous communication or having taken precaution to conceal the name or abode of the person from whom the threat comes. But herein in this case there is no said anonymous communication made by the petitioner but he
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6325 CRL.P No. 200738 of 2024 direct speech in social media and he has not conceal himself in making such statement in video and audio whatsapp message. Therefore, it cannot be considered as anonymous communication by concealing offender himself, who are giving any threat to any persons. Here there is no threat made by the petitioner against any of the leaders but he has insulted the leaders of a particular community. Such being case, the ingredients of Section 507 is not attracted. Therefore, the charge-sheet for Section 507 of IPC will have to be quashed.
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on some judgments in respect of Section 506 of IPC, wherein the petitioner was got relief of quashing the criminal proceedings. The fact of that case is altogether different from the present case on the hand. Therefore, the said order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in favour of petitioner is for 506 of IPC not applicable to the case on hand.
16. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6325
CRL.P No. 200738 of 2024
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed in-part.
(ii) The offence under Section 507 of IPC in the charge-sheet is hereby quashed.
(iii) However, the petitioner has to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC.
(iv) The Trial Court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law by securing the presence of the petitioner.
Sd/-
(K NATARAJAN) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 42 CT:SI