Telangana High Court
Kalvakuntla Taraka Rama Rao vs The State Of Telangana, on 19 March, 2025
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2735 OF 2025
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mr.T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings in Crime No.321 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 alleged against him are under Sections 352 and 353(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
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 20.08.2024. In the said complaint, respondent No.2 has alleged that the petitioner 2 herein is holding X Account @ KTRBRS and he has tweeted on 20.08.2024 at 12.47 P.M. and the same is as follows:
"Mark my words Cheap Minister Revanth. We will clear out the trash from the surroundings of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Secretariat the very day we are back in office.
Cannot expect a Delhi Ghulam like you to ever understand the self-respect and pride of Telangana. Using filthy language.
In front of school children shows your lousy thinking and rude upbringing. Wishing you speedy healing from your mental sickness."
Thus, according to respondent No.2, the aforesaid tweet of the petitioner is highly defamatory and amounts to damaging the reputation of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. The petitioner defamed the Hon'ble Chief Minister by deliberately using the word 'Cheap Minister'. Further, the petitioner quoted the Hon'ble Chief Minister as 'Delhi Ghulam', which is highly defamatory and damaging the reputation of not only the Hon'ble Chief Minister but also the reputation of the entire State of Telangana. It was further alleged that though the Hon'ble Chief Minister is working very hard for the welfare of the State of Telangana, 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 supra, on receipt of the said complaint, since the offences alleged against the petitioner are non- cognizable offences, the Sub-Inspector 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 21.08.2024, 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 aforesaid offences. The petitioner filed the present criminal petition to quash the said proceedings. 4
7. Mr.T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the contents of the complaint dated 20.08.2024 lacks the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. Without considering the said contents, learned Magistrate accorded permission to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Saifabad, to register the crime against the petitioner with one word 'permitted'. Therefore, while granting permission, learned Magistrate did not consider the said aspects, more particularly, the complaint lacks the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. The said permission granted by the learned Magistrate is mechanical, without any reasons. He placed reliance on the principle laid down by this Court vide order dated 26.02.2021 in Criminal Petition No.3653 of 2015.
8. Whereas, Mr.Palle Nageswara Rao, learned Public Prosecutor, contended that the proceedings are at crime stage. There are several aspects to be considered by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Quashing of proceedings at the threshold is impermissible. On completion of investigation, if the Investigating Officer 5 comes to a conclusion that the contents of the complaint and the statements of the witnesses lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences, he will file 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 18.12.2024 in Criminal Petition Nos.12327 of 2023 and 5002 of 2023.
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:
"351.Criminal intimidation.-- Whoever threatens another by any means, with any 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 omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.-- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.6
Illustration: 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-Whoever intentionally insults in any manner, 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.
353. Statements conducing to public mischief.--(1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, false information, rumour, or report, including through electronic means--
(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in 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 commit any offence against the State or against the public tranquility; or
(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extent to three years, or with fine, or with both.7
10. As per the aforesaid provisions, to attract the offence under Section 351 criminal intimidation the following are the ingredients:
i) There should be a threat;
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 insult and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it is to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, shall be punishable.
12. 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 induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility, etc, shall be punishable. Sections 351, 352 and 353(1) of BNS are akin to Sections 503, 504 and 505 of IPC.
13. In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P. 1, the allegations leveled against the accused are that he was telling others that the Army personnel have been committing atrocities on Muslims in Kashmir. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 153A and 505(2) of IPC. On consideration of the said facts, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the common feature in both sections being promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious or racial or language or regional groups or castes and communities it is necessary that atleast two such groups or communities should be involved. Merely inciting the feeling of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group cannot attract either of the two sections. The result of the said discussion 1 1997 (7) SCC 431 9 is that appellant who has not done anything 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.
14. In Asif Iqbal Naik v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 2, 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 importance. 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 504, 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 Court 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 2 2023 SCC Online J&K 65 10 the investigation despite several requests and thirdly that the District Magistrate as an Executive Magistrate was not competent to issue directions for investigation of the case. On the said three grounds, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir quashed the proceedings against the accused therein.
15. In Tejinder Pal Singh Bagga v. State of Punjab 3, the petitioner was a Spokes-person of BJP-Delhi, he gave an interview in the media criticizing Mr.Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi. Therefore, a case was registered against him for the offences under Sections 153A, 505, 505(2) and 506 of IPC and on examination of the facts that Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of the said offences against the petitioner therein.
16. In Santanu Kumar Takri v. Gangadhar Nanda 4, the allegations leveled against the petitioner therein are that he addressed issues related to prevention of cruelty to animals 3 2022 SCC Online P&H 2655 4 2022 SCC Online Ori 3911 11 delivered a speech stressed upon the demand of meat of the Indian cows and bulls abroad thereby committed 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 India 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on a decision of 'Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott 6. 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 must 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 5 (2014) 11 Supreme Court Cases 477 6 (2013) 1 SCR 467 12 manifestations of the emotion described by the words "detestation" and "vilification". This filters out expression which, while repugnant and offensive, does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimisation and rejection that risk causing discrimination or other harmful effects. Third, Tribunals must focus their analysis on the effect of the expression at issue, namely whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others. The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination.
18. In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar 7 while upholding the constitutional validity of Section 505 of IPC has observed:
7
AIR 1962 SC 955 13 "It is only necessary to add a few observations with respect to the constitutionality of Section 505 of the Indian Penal 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, Navy or Air Force to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or (b) to cause fear or alarm to the public or a section of the public which may induce the commission of an offence against the State or against public tranquility; or (c) to incite or which is likely to incite one class or community of persons to commit an offence against any other class or community. It is manifest that each one of the constituent elements of the offence under Section 505 has reference to, and 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 Punjab 8, the petitioner therein, during Vidhan Sabha elections, gave a video interview, leveling imputations about the involvement of Mr.Arvind Kejriwal, Chief Minister of Delhi, with 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 registered against the petitioner therein for the offences under Sections 153, 153A, 505, 505(2), 116, 143, 147, 323, 341 and 120B of IPC and Section 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. On examination of the facts therein, the High Court of Punjab and Harayana held that the contents are lacking ingredients of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner.
20. In the light of the said principle, the contents of the aforesaid offences and coming to the facts of the case, it is the specific case of the petitioner that he is not maintaining X Account @ KTRBRS. Further, he is denying the tweet and the same is not his account. Respondent No.2 has added certain things to the said alleged tweet and lodged a complaint. Respondent No.2 is not the victim to lodge a complaint. Respondent No.2 did not explain with regard to the alleging breach of peach and the contents of Section 503 of IPC to constitute an offence in terms of the criminal intimidation.
15
21. It is also relevant to note that in the said complaint dated 20.08.2024, respondent No.2 alleged that by the said tweet, the petitioner defamed the reputation of the Hon'ble Chief Minister deliberately. If it amounts to defamation, respondent No.2 or the victim has to take steps in accordance with the procedure laid down under the law. Respondent No.2 can't lodge the said complaint dated 20.08.2024 with Police, Saifabad Police Station, to take action against the petitioner herein.
22. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 9, 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 complaint, quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark 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 9 . (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 16 guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section
- 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under:
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support 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 non-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 17 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 criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved 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."
The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions.
23. In the light of the above discussion and 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 law and, therefore, the 18 proceedings are liable to be quashed against the petitioner in exercise of powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C.
24. Accordingly, the present Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.321 of 2024 on the file of Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioner herein - accused.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 19 March, 2025 ynk 19 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No.2735 OF 2025 19 March, 2025 ynk