Point of law: The extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, it could quash a First Information Report. The police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any court in pursuance of the F.I.R. It ought to be realized that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.

ORDER :

1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No.848 of 2020 on the file of Tadipatri Town Police Station, Anantapur District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 153 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, on the basis of the complaint dated 25.12.2020 lodged by the defacto complainant/second respondent herein, the petitioner was falsely implicated in Crime No.848 of 2020.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, the defacto complainant is a police constable bearing Number PC-1967 by name K. Peddanna. According to him, on 24.12.2020 he received information regarding telephonic conversation which allegedly took place between one Vali - a resident of Tadipatri Town working in MY News, Youtube channel and one Kulasekhar Reddy - a sand bullock-cart transporter. The verbatim of the conversation which was recorded by Vali states as follows:

“..that Tadipatri MLA Sri Pedda Reddy wife is demanding Rs.10,000/-per one bullock cart of sand and that she assured that if any problem arises they will look after it”

4. It is alleged that, Vali and Somasekhar Naidu who belong to the group of Ex.MLA Prabhakar Reddy, conspired together and uploaded the said verbatim in social media with a view to provoke two groups in Tadipatri Town. After coming to know about the matter, the defacto complainant reported the same to police station and a case in Crime No.848 of 2020 was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 153-A r/w 34 I.P.C and issued First Information Report.

5. The main contention of the petitioner in the present petition is that, the police are acting as hand in glove with the political party in power; false and frivolous case is registered against this petitioner and on the face of the complaint no case is made out to constitute an offence punishable under Section 153-A I.P.C, as alleged by the police. It is contended that, the entire contents of the First Information Report, even if accepted in toto, they does not make out any offence punishable under Section 153-A I.P.C. The alleged private conversation between the two individuals took place with regard to transportation of sand by bullock-cart, wherein a reference of wife of Sri Pedda Reddy is taken to the extent that she was demanding Rs.10,00/- for transportation of sand on bullock cart. It is contended that, there is no reference to any hate speech or any intention of maligning any political leader, even if the entire conversation is accepted in toto and as such no offence under Section 153-A I.P.C is made out. It is also contended that, in Ramesh v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 775 the Apex Court observed that, “the effect of the words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view.” Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bilaal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3483 to contend that, the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 153-A r/w 34 I.P.C and requested to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 848 of 2020 on the file of Tadipatri Town Police Station, Anantapur District.

6. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition, whereas, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that, at this stage, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed, since he is the person who uploaded recorded conversation in the youtube along with Vali. As such, the petitioner and Vali are liable to be prosecuted for the offence. Therefore, there is absolutely no ground to quash the proceedings at this stage and requested to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point that