1 APHC010171772021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2814/2021 Between: Palivela Raju ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND Mandapalli Chittibabu and others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.67 of 2021 on the file of Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 153A, 505 (I) (C) IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent/defacto complainant lodged a report with the police of Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District alleging that the accused posted a posting in Whatsapp group named “Ramachandrapuram Press Club” against Sri Celluboina Srinivasa Venugopal, BC Welfare Minister, Ramachandrapuram by provoking issues regarding Caste and Community, which lead to hatred between various communities. 3. This Court, on 06.05.2021, passed the following interim order: “…..Accordingly, there shall be stay of further investigation including arrest of the petitioner till further orders of this Court.” 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 2nd respondent-State. 5. None appeared for the 1st respondent/defacto-complainant. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence and further that the report does not contain as to what type of message was spread and when there are no details of the offence, registering the crime against the petitioner is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and prays to allow the criminal petition. 3 7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent contended that the alleged acts of the petitioner are sufficient to conclude that the petitioner committed offences punishable under Sections 153A, 505(1) (c) of IPC and Section 67 of Information Technology Act. 8. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.67 of 2021 on the file of Ramachandrapuram Police Station, East Godavari District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 9. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing 4 powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 10. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows: 11. In “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab1”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles: “(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.” 12. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations 1AIR 1960 SC 866 5 set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar2” 13. In “State of Haryana v. BhajanLal3” the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: “(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. 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 6 (3) Where the 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 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 concerned Act (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 the concerned Act, 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.” 14. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 15. The offences alleged against the petitioner/accused in the present C.C. are under Sections 153A & 505(1)(C) I.P.C. and Section 67 of Information Technology Act. Section 153A I.P.C. reads as under: “Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.— 7 (1) Whoever— (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, or (c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community,shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Offence committed in place of worship, etc.— (2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 505(1)(C) I.P.C. reads as under: “Statements conducing to public mischief.— (1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report,— (a) xxx 8 (b) xxx (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 extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Section 67 of Information Technology Act reads as under: “Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. - Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.” 16. Now, it is to be examined whether the aforesaid offences would attract in the present case, on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint and prima facie material available on record. As can be seen from the contents of the complaint, the allegation made against the petitioner is that he has sent a message in WhatsApp group by name “Ramachandrapuram Press Club”, which is in the nature of promoting enmity between different groups of people and would lead to hatred between various communities. Except this bald allegation, the complaint does not reveal any information with regard to the 9 content of the message allegedly posted by the petitioner in WhatsApp group. In the absence of any such information and in the absence of any prima facie material on record to show that the alleged message promoted enmity between different groups of people, the complaint could not have been registered. Therefore, since there is no prima facie material to attract any of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against him is nothing but an abuse of process of law and hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.67 of 2021 on the file of Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand dismissed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 28.01.2025 KGR