APHC010324642021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5054/2021 Between: Kanaparti Ravi Prasad ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. SUDHAKARA RAO AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.,) has been filed by the petitioner/accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in Crime No.101 of 2021 of Tirumala II Town Police Station, Tirupathi Urban. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- (i) The de-facto complainant presented a complaint to the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Tirumala, stating that the team of Cyber Security and Social Media Monitoring cell, TTD identified the fake news against two senior officers of TTD with the caption “1) InavarikiContractulu, AdikarulukiMudupulu 2) TTD 70 Kotlacontractlo…kotlarupayalumudupulu”. It is further stated that one online publication, Gemininews Online.com, made a false and frivolous allegations against two senior TTD officers, claiming that they are being close to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and having his support for their actions, that a tender was awarded to an agency at a cost of ₹6 crores per month, totaling ₹72 crores per annum. It also claimed that although the tenders were called during the tenure of the TTD Board, the senior officers selected an agency after expiry of the board's tenure. Additionally, it was alleged that the officers received illegal gratification worth crores for awarding the tender. It was further alleged that the two senior officers selected an agency for the operation of counters at an expenditure of ₹70 crores for illegal gratification, despite the fact that these counters were previously operated by nationalized banks and other service providers free of cost. 3 (ii) It is further stated that the Laddu counters, Vaikuntam Queue Complex counters, and toll gate counters were previously maintained by nationalized banks and Trilok Agency for free of cost, while 29 counters were operated by 7 FM Facility and Services India Private Limited at a cost of ₹12,345 + GST per 8-hour shift per counter. (iii)Except for Indian Bank and HDFC Bank, all other banks expressed their inability to continue running the counters after 31-03-2020. As a result, the then TTD Board decided to hand over the operation of counters to a professional agency, and tenders were invited accordingly. KVM Infocommwas selected as the lowest bidder, quoting ₹11,402.34 + GST per 8- hour shift per counter, as per TTD Board Resolution No. 398 dated 27-02- 2021.Indian Bank, which was operating one counter, and HDFC Bank, which was operating four counters, also withdrew their services from 30-06-2021. Following their withdrawal, the Specified Authority was compelled to make an administrative decision to operate only 59 counters for Laddu distribution and other services. This decision was taken as part of regular administrative duties and was not aimed at favoring KVM Infocomm, as falsely alleged by Gemininewsonline.com. (iv) It is further stated that the Editor, Publisher, and Owner of Gemininewsonline.com knowingly published false information with the intent to harm the reputation of two senior TTD officers and tarnish the image of TTD. Despite being aware that publishing such news would damage their reputation, he circulated these false allegations to defame them and create 4 suspicion among pilgrims regarding TTD’s administration. As such, the 2nd respondent lodged the present complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 505 (1)(b) IPC. 3. Heard Sri Sudhakara Rao Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the petition, would submit that initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law and that the FIR and the connected material do not make out any prima facie case against the petitioner, as the complaint did not contain any such allegation that the petitioner incited the violence against the Government. He further submits that there is no intention to defame the officers and to create suspicion in the minds of pilgrims on the administration of TTD by publishing the news and as such the allegations will not attract the provisions of Section 505 (1) IPC. He further submits that the alleged news item posted on the online news portal and the same news item was published by leading newspapers and there is no intention or motive to the petitioner to incite public basing upon the aforesaid news item. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner made irresponsible allegations against the complainant and the petitioner being a well knowledgable person having filed several Public Interest Litigations, cannot make allegations of this nature with cruel intention. He submits that the petitioner has been deliberately spreading rumours to 5 create unrest in the minds of the pilgrims and that the investigation is at the nascent stage and that there are no valid grounds to quash the proceedings. 6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in Crime No.101 of 2021 of Tirumala II Town Police Station, Tirupathi Urban registered for the offence under Section 505(1)(b) IPC? 7. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 8. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents.The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others 1is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. The guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in the said Judgment are as follows: 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 6 (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 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 too private and personal grudge. 9. In the case on hand, it is alleged that the team of cyber security and social media monitoring cell, TTD identified the fake news against two officers 7 of TTDs with the caption 1) InavarikiContractulu, AdikarulukiMudupulu 2) TTD 70 Kotlacontractlo…kotlarupayalumudupulu” and one online publication made a false and frivolous allegations against two senior TTD officers spreading rumors about the specified authority of TTD that the officers receiving illegal gratification worth crores for awarding the tenders and the senior officers selected agency for the operation of counters at an expenditure of Rs.70 crores for illegal gratification, despite the fact that these counters were previously operated by national banks and other service providers free of cost. 10. Needless to say, to attract the offence punishable under Section 505 (1) (b) IPC, there must be some allegation that the Petitioner, to cause fear or alarm to the public, has done the alleged act. When any individual circulates any news in good faith, without having criminal intention, the said act does not fall under the scope of the offence under Section 505 IPC. 11. However, it is apposite to extract the comments made by the Petitioner relating to the administration of TTD, which are as follows: “టిటిడి 70 కోట్ల కాం్ᡏా్ట ్ లో…. కోట్ల ూపాయలు ముడుపులు..? టిటిడిలో ఉన్న తాధికులుగా బాధ్య తలు నిర్వ హిసుున్న అధికులకు మాం్ᡔులాంటే లెక్క లేదు. సీనియర్ ఐఎఎస్ అధికులను ఖాతు చేయర్నే విమర్శ ఉాంది. అాంతా ఏక్ప్ᡌాంగా నిర్ణయాం తీసుకుాంటాు. అదేమిట్ాంటే.. ముఖ్య మాంత్త జగన్ రెడిి మాకు అతయ ాంత సనిన హితుడని చెపుు కుాంటు్నన ర్ట్. తాము ఏాం చేసి్న ముఖ్య మాం్ᡔి ఆశీసుష లు, మద్దతుాంటాయని ఆ అధికుల న్మమ క్మట్. ముఖ్య మాం్ᡔి జగన్ రెడిితో ఉన్న చనువుతో ఆ అధికులు మిాంత రె్చి పోతు ్నన ర్ని.. అాంతా మా ఇష్్ాం మాకు ఇష్్ాం అయితే ద్ర్శ ్నల టి్ᠪక టుల ఇస్ు ాం.. లేకుాంటే మీకు చేతనైాంది చేసుకోాండి. అని బాహాట్ాంగానే అ అధికి పలువుిని అన్న సాంఘట్న్లు్నన యని భకుులు చెపుు కుాంటు్నన ు. తిుమల శీ ీవాికి భకుుల ్షవ ా వచేి నిధులను సదివ నియోగాం చేయా్ᡪష న్ అధికులు సుమాు 70 కోటుల పైగా శీ ీవాి సొముమ ను దుివ నియోగాం అవబోతు్నన యట్ ఇక్ అసలు విష్యానికి వ్ᡜు.. అటు తిుమల, ఇటు తిుపతిలో పలు కౌాంట్ులలో ఉ్చతాంగా ్ᡜవలను జాతీయ బాయ ాంకులతో పాటు 8 పలు ్ᡜవా సాంసథలు ్ᡜవలు అాందిసుుాండగా.. మాకు మీ ఉ్చత ్ᡜవలు ఑దుద.. ఏజే్సష ్షవ ా బాధ్య తలు నిర్వ హిస్ు ాం అని టాండుల పి్ᡪచాు. ఑క్ ఏజె్సష ఆ బాధ్య తలు ద్కిక ాంచుకుాంది. నెలకు సుమాు 6 కోటుల అాంటే సాంవతష ానికి 72 కోటుల శీ ీవాిపై ఆ భార్ాం పడనున్న ది. బోుి కొన్స్గుతున్న పుు డు బాండుల పి్ᡪ్చ్న... బోుి కలాం పిమితి ముగియట్ాంతో టాండుల వేసిన్ ఑క్ సాంసథను ఎాంపిక్ చేశాు అధికులు. ఆ సాంసథను ఎాంపిక్ చేసిన్ాందుకు ఇద్దు అధికులకు కోటుల ముడుపులు అాం్షయని టిటిడిలో త్పచార్ాం జుగుతోాంది. తిుమలలో అటు లడుి కౌాంట్ులలో, ఇటు ఇతర్ ప్ాాంతాలలో జాతీయ బాయ ాంకులతో పాటు ఑క్ ్ᡜవా సాంసథ ఉ్చతాంగా ్ᡜవలాందిసుున్న పు టికీ.. సుమాు 70కోట్ ఖ్ుి తో ఑క్ ప్ైవేటు ఏజె్సష కి ఆ బాధ్య తలు అపు జెపు ట్ాం వెనుక్ ఇద్దు టిటిడి అధికులకు ముడుపులు అాం్షయని విమర్శ లు వెలులవెతుుతు్నన యి. దీనిపై విచార్ణ జిపితే వాసువాలు బయట్ పడతాయని.. అధికర్ ాజకీయ పాీ్యేతర్ ్నయకులు. బాహాట్ాంగానే ఆరోపిాంచాు.” 12. A bare perusal of the comments made by the Petitioner would clearly show that there was no intention on the part of the Petitioner to cause fear or alarm to the public or pilgrims or against the public tranquility, to attract the offence under Section 505(1)(b) IPC. In absence of any attempt by the Petitioner in that regard, this Court is of the view that the basic ingredients of Section 505 (1) (b) IPC have not been made out. Where the allegations made in the FIR or the Complaint, even if they are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioner, the FIR is liable to be quashed, as per the guideline No.1 of the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhajanlal’s case (supra). 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but abuse of process of law. 9 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.101 of 2021 of Tirumala II Town Police Station, Tirupathi Urban. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 21.01.2025 JLV 10 434 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5054 of 2021 Date: 21.01.2025. JLV