APHC010470472024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7504 OF 2024 Between: V. Murali, S/o. V. Bhuchi Ramulu, aged 66 years Publications Ltd R/o. H.No. 1-8-678/3, Flat 301 Padma Colony, Nallakunta Hyderabad - 500 044. Occ Editor - Jagati ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Sri Gudapati Lakshminarayana, S/o. Vishnuvardhana Rao, Age 49 Occ Advocate, High Court of AP Prasadampadu, Vijayawada - 521108. years R/o. D.No.7-169, Main Road ...Respondents Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner in Cr.No.784 of 2024 on the file of the Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada City registered for the offences under Section 196(a) and Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of SRI V. MAHESWAR REDDY,Advocate for the petitioner and of the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents 1 and of SRI Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following order: % APHC010470472024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7504/2024 Between: V Murali • ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.VMAHESWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 11211 CRLP.No.7504 of 2024 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N CRIMINAL PETITION No.7504 of 2024 ORDER: The criminal petition is filed seeking quash of Crime No.784 of 2024 registered for alleged offences under Sections 196(A) and Section 353(2) of BNS. 2. The petitioner is the Editor of Sakshi Daily News Paper. A complaint was filed alleging that an article was published in the News Paper on 08.10.2024 titling Babu jamana avineeti khajana- munupulonu mesesharu - (Translation - Babu Era Corruption Treasure-even during floods). An article was published in news paper alleging corruption, financial mismanagement and utilization of funds allocated for the flood relief. 3. It is alleged in the complaint a fake news was published to instigate violent riots with an intention to spread false information and to mislead the public in the state. It is alleged in the complaint that the news article is contrary to the facts and far from truth. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the article was published by a Senior Journalist and Editor of the News Paper after extensive research and after receiving credible information. It is also submitted that wild allegations on a news CRLP.No.7504 of 2024 article cannot be made and equally cannot be made basis for registering a case under Section 196-A and 353(2) of BNS. It is submitted that the complaint is silent on as to which of the classes or groups were impacted resulting in occurrence of riots. It is submitted that the article would not promote any feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will between religious or retail or linguistic or regional groups or castes and communities. 5. The learned counsel places reliance on S.Kushboo Vs. Kanniammal^ the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the article was not published on behalf of one group and the content of the article was not directed against any particular group. Section 196-A of BNS (153-A of IPC) cannot be made applicable. * 6. Further reliance is placed on Bilal Ahmad Kaloo Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 153-A and Section 505 of IPC have a common feature of promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes and communities. It is necessary that atleast two such groups or communities should be involved. May be inciting the feeling of one 12010(5) see 600 * 2 1997 (7) see 431 CRLP.No,7504of2024 community or group without reference to any other group cannot attract either of the two sections. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner places .reliance on Patricia Mukhim Vs. State of Meghalaya^ the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the FIR which was registered for offences under Section 153-A and 505 (1)(c) of IPC. It was held that only where the» written or spoken words have the tendency of creating public disorder or disturbance of Law and Order for affecting public tranquillity, the Law needs to step in to prevent such an activity. The intention to cause this order or incite people to violence is the of the offence under Section 153-A IPC and sine qua non prosecution has to prove the existing status oimensrea in order to succeed. The learned counsel also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Kantamaneni Ravi Shankar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh^, the learned Judge of this Court has quashed Crime No.20 of 2020 which was registered for alleged offences under Section 188, 505(2) and 506 of IPC and Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act. This Court held at paras 59 to 62, 69, 70, 71 is as follows : 8. 3 2021 (15) see 35 ^2021 (1)ALD (eri) 306 CRLP.No.7504 of 2024 Further, a bare look at the contents of Section 505 (2) of I.P.C., to constitute an offence punishable under Section 505 (2) of I.P.C., there must be publication or circulation of any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or constitute an offence punishable under Section 505 (2) of I.P.C. there must be two groups or classes belong to two different castes, religions or communities etc. ■ 59. communities. Therefore, to Here, there are no two groups or classes and Sri Y.S.Jaganmohan Reddy and the Government by itself cannot be construed as one group. In the absence of two groups, the question of commission of offence punishable under Section 505 (2) of I.P.C. does not arise. In "Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 18" the Apex Court drawn the distinction between Section 153-A of I.P.C. and Section 505 (2) of I.P.C., held that the common ingredient in both the offences is promoting feeling of enmity, hatred or ill- will 1997 (7) see 431 between different religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities. Section 153A covers a case where a person by "words, either spoken or written, or by signs by visible representations" promotes or attempts to promote such feeling. Under Section 505(2), promotion of such feeling should have been done by making and publishing or circulating any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news. The Apex Court further observed that the main distinction between the two offences is that publication of the word or representation is not necessary under the former, such publication is sine qua non under Section 505. The words "whoever makes, publishes or circulates" used in the setting of Section 505(2) cannot be interpreted disjunctively but only as supplementary to each other. If it is construed disjunctively, anyone 60. even 61. or 62. CRLP.No.7504 of 2024 4 who makes a statement falling within the meaning of Section 505 would, without Publication or circu^aton be liable to conviction. But the same is the effect wdh Section 153A also and then that Section wou beer^ bad for redundancy. The intenion of he legllature in providing two different sectonsj the same subject would have been to cover two Sws of similar colour. The fact that both sections w^e Wudfd as a package in the same amending lends further support to the saiu enactment construction. law declared by the Courts (referred the complaint must 69. In view of the ahove'i the allegations made in necessarily disclose such publication, statement or circulation^ of such statement containing rumour or «g news among the public based on religion race p^ace of birth, residence, language, caste or under Section 505 (2) of I.P.C. is illegal. 70. On close dated 29.04.2020 srrcSs' rA-to «or . S'tl^^postings in “e >s only insult the ani - cK‘nis2^ rne7T ° crerxsr renresentatwe in the absence of any other group creSion Tsdch enmity, ill-will etc. on the basis ^ religion etc., does not constitute an offence punishabl under Section 505 (2) of I.P.C. examination of contents of ‘be complaint lodged by respondent No.4 with such two groups and such declared by the Apex Court of Andhra Pradesh and of other High Courts, I In view of the law including the High Court persuaded by the judgments 71. mu CRLP.No.7504 of 2024 have no hesitation to hold that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 505 (2) of I.P.C., prima facie, but respondent No.3 being the instrumentality of the State working under the thumb of the State, for the reasons best known to him by abuse of process of law, registered crime against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 505 (2) of I.P.C. The prime duty of police is narrated above, before commencing investigation, the police officer has to satisfy that the allegation made in the complaint prima facie constitute cognizable offence to proceed further with the investigation. Registration of a crime without any material allegation to constitute cognizable offence, harassing the public in the guise of investigation may lead to anarchy, exhibits the lack of minimum knowledge about law, given an impression that the department is manned by an officer without any administrative control and such acts of the department creates an impression that the people are living in a kakistocracy, though the petitioner is living in a democracy. Unless such acts of the officers are controlled, it may lead to serious consequences causing damage to life, liberty and reputation of an individual which is violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, registration of crime against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 505 (2) of I.P.C. is liable to be quashed since the crime was registered by abuse of process of law. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a settled preposition of law that the news paper article cannot give cause of action for filing complaint for the sole reason that the article is not in good taste for the people at the helm of affairs in the State. CRLP.No.7504 of 2024 10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the investigation is in the preliminary stage and that this Court on 24.10.2024 directed the investigating officer to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 35(3) of BNSS and the Police are yet to complete the investigation and prays for dismissing the petition. 11. Notice to the 2""^ respondent was served and proof of service is also filed. There is no representation for the 2"*^ respondent. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material available on record. 13. The basis for filing of the complaint is a news paper article which according to the 2"^ respondent would result in promoting enmity, inciting riots, commotion between two religious groups or castes. 14. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution not only guarantee freedom of speech and expression, but also protests the right of individual to listen, read and receive the speech or article. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Romesh Thappar Vs. The State of Madras^, the -Government of Madras in an exercise of their powers under section 9 (1-A) of the Madras ® 1950 AIR 124, delivered on 26.05.1950 CRLP.No.7504 of 2024 Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act) purportedly issued an order No.MS.1333, dated 1^* March, 1950, whereby they imposed a ban upon the entry and circulation of the journal in that State. The order was published in the Fort St.George Gazette and the notification reads as follows "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 9 (I- A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order, Act, 1949 (Madras Act XXIII of 1949) His Excellency the Governor of Madras, being satisfied that for the purpose of securing the public safety and the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, hereby prohibits, with effect on and from the date of publication of this order in the Fort St. George Gazette the entry into or the circulation, sale or distribution in the State of Madras or any part thereof of the newspaper entitled Cross Roads an English weekly published at Bombay." 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that right of circulation of newspaper cannot be curtailed and interfere. The ground of public safety under Article 19(2) is not a reasonable restriction and held that the notification was set aside as it violated Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. 16. Registration of Crime on receipt of a complaint regarding publication of article which neither resulted in promoting enmity between groups nor did it incite any commotion or rights. Section 195-A of BNS cannot be deployed at the drop CRLP.No.7504 of 2024 ' of the hat. This Court is of the considered view that the Law is well settled on the Freedom of Speech and Expression and the Freedom of Press has to be protected for ensuring that information from all angels would reach the masses. For every issue there can be a 360° degree dimensional view and as such views from different angles cannot become subjects of criminal complaints. In the event the article is defamatory it is always open for the person so defamed proceed damages by during the extent of defamation which the article allegedly caused. 17. On these grounds, the criminal petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall st|lrds closed. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// y qy SECTION OFFICER To, I.The SHO, Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District. 2. One CC to SRI. V. MAHESWAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies nm HIGH COURT DATED;24/03/2025 ORDER CRLP NO. 7504 OF 2024 ALLOWING THE CRLP