APHC010099342021 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: 1582/2021 Between: Sodadasi Praveen Chakravarthy, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. GVNRSSS VARA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. Y L SIVA KALPANA REDDY 2. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI 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.1 of 2021 of Cyber Crime Police Station, CID, AP, Mangalagiri. 2. The facts of the case in brief, are as follows:- (i) De-facto complainant, who is a native of Pandaripuram, Guntur Town, and the Convener of Pragna Bharathi Organization, gave a complaint to the Police, alleging that on 12.01.2021 at 2.00 PM, while he was browsing YouTube, he came across a video titled "Dhevulla Vigrahaalu Fake.. Nenu Yenno Vigrahaalanu Naa Chethulatho Dhwamsam Chesanu" - Pastor Praveen. Upon playing the video, the person in it claimed to have broken many Hindu deity statues, giving the impression of promoting Christianity. The English transcript of his statements reads as follows: "It says Gospel, I will make a pastor come and stay there, so that, he will continue that. After everyone who had accepted Christ as Savior and when they remove the tree God a stone God, then I call it a Christ village. In some villages, I had hit the stones and trees with my leg in front of the village people. They only said, ‘Pastor Praveen, you can hit it. Because it's a fake.’ So there are many cases which I had kicked the Gods heads and I was so happy. From that time, we made a Christ village. Christ village means it’s a whole village had accepted Christ. In this way, we have made hundreds of Christ villages and still we are trying to do our best." 3 (ii) The de-facto complainant further alleged in his complaint that these statements provoke Hindu sentiments, encourage religious discord between Hindus and Christians, and threaten national integrity and security. Basing on the said complaint a case in Crime No.1 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 153(A), 153(B)(1)(C), 505(1)(C), 505(2), 295(A), 124(A), 115 IPC r/w 66(F) and IT Act 2000 against Pastor Praveen. 3. Heard Sri GVNRSSS Vara Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State and Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the criminal petition contended that the petitioner is nothing to do with the offences as alleged and he was falsely implicated in the alleged crime. He further submits that the allegations in the complaint do not constitute any offences much less the alleged offence against the petitioner. He submits that the ingredients of Section 124(A) of the IPC are not made out as there is no averment against the petitioner for the offence under Section 124(A) IPC. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that there are specific over tact attributed against the petitioner. The truth or otherwise of which will be determined by a competent Court. Since the offence alleged are serious in nature, there are no valid grounds to quash the proceedings and hence prayed for dismissal of the criminal petition. 6. 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) 4 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. 7. 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 1 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows : “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 5 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 to private and personal grudge. 8. Keeping in view the principle of law extracted above, I would examine the facts of the case here. In the instant case, basing on the report given by the de-facto complainant, a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 153(A), 153 (B)(1)(C), 505(1)(C), 505(2), 295(A), 124(A), 115 IPC, r/w 66(F) of IT Act. 9. It is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 124(A) of IPC, which reads as under:- 6 124ASedition.--Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, 2*** the Government established by law in 3[India], 4*** shall be punished with 5[imprisonment for life], to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine. Explanation 1.-- The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. Explanation 2.--Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section. Explanation 3.--Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section. 10. A bare perusal of the FIR along with the accompanied complaint of the de-facto complaint would show that, the statement said to have been given by the petitioner promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between the different religions like Hindus and Christians or religion groups in caste or communities. 11. A perusal of the material on record would show that the entire allegations of the complaint constitute offences as alleged. The truth or otherwise of the allegations will be determined by competent criminal Court and this Court cannot decide the same in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. unless there are uncontroverted allegations made and the evidence collected in support of the same. The allegations in the complaint or FIR, even if they are taken to be true at their face value constitutes the offences as alleged. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Further, in so far as, the offence under Section 124(A) IPC is concerned, the entire allegations of the complaint 7 is taken to be true, do not constitute any offence punishable under Section 124(A) IPC. A statement made by the petitioner is promoting enmity between different religions but not against any of the Government. Hence, the offence under Section 124(A) of IPC is not made out against the petitioners. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner in respect of the offences under Section 124(A) IPC is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed to that extent only. 12. Further, the allegations made in the complaint prima facie would constitute an offence punishable under Sections 153(A), 153(B)(1)(C), 505(1)(C), 505(2), 295(A), 115 IPC r/w 66(F) and IT Act 2000. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided after full-fledged trial. Therefore, at this stage, this court is not inclined to quash the FIR in so far as Sections 153(A), 153(B)(1)(C), 505(1)(C), 505(2), 295(A), 115 IPC r/w 66(F) and IT Act 2000 are concerned. 13. For the reasons stated above, the criminal petition is partly allowed by quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 124(A) of IPC while dismissing the criminal petition against the petitioner in respect of other offences. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 21.01.2025 JLV 8 431 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1582 of 2021 Date: 21.01.2025. JLV