Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.
P. Naveen Kumar Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
The State of AP and Others - Respondent
Criminal Petition No: 4619/2021
Decided On : 10-05-2024
Quashment - Criminal Proceedings - Cr.P.C Section 482, IPC Section 505(1)(b) - The court interpreted the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C and Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC, emphasizing the necessity of intention to cause fear or alarm for the latter, leading to the quashment of proceedings against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was accused of posting false information on social media about the administration of TTD, allegedly intending to defame the authority and create public suspicion, leading to a complaint under IPC Section 505(1)(b).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations did not constitute a prima facie case under Section 505(1)(b) IPC, as there was no intention to cause fear or alarm, and the FIR was quashed.
Issues: Whether the proceedings against the petitioner under IPC Section 505(1)(b) should be quashed due to lack of prima facie case and intention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for an offence under Section 505(1)(b) IPC, there must be an intention to cause fear or alarm, which was absent in this case, justifying the quashment of the FIR.
Result: The criminal petition is allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.
ORDER :
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused seeking quashment of proceedings against him in Crime No.100 of 2021 on the file of Tirumala II Town Police Station, Tirupati Urban registered for the offence under Section 505 (1) (b) of the Indian Penal Code[for short ‘IPC’].
2. The allegations leveled against the Petitioner in the complaint, in brief, are as follows:
b. TTD Board handed over 59 out of 164 Laddu counters to KVM Infocom, which was the least quoted agency, by passing a resolution in February with total expenditure of 23.28 lakhs per month only as an alternative arrangement to run the counters.
c. The Petitioner with an intention to harm the reputation of the Specified Authority of TTD and to tarnish the image of TTD, posted the video in his Facebook account and other WhatsApp groups and circulated the false information and rumours with an intention to defame the Specific Authority of TTD and to create suspicion in the minds of pilgrims on the administration of TTD.
d. As such, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 505 (1) (b) IPC.
Grounds for quashment:
3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds:
b. The FIR and the connected material do not make out any prima facie case against the Petitioner.
c. There is no intention on the part of the Petitioner to cause fear or alarm to the public.
d. Petitioner has expressed his opinion honestly without any intention to create suspicion in the minds of devotees to malign the image and prestige of TTD and the Specified Authority and as such, no criminality can be attributed to him.
e. Petitioner posted the news in social media relying on the earlier G.Os, statements of several political leaders including the former Chief Minister and the former Chairman of TTD both in print and electronic media.
f. Petitioner being a devotee of Lord Venkateswara Swamy, for the past over 25 years, in the interest of the institution, has been circulating several news in social media and has been filing Public Interest Litigation cases before the High Court. It would indicate his concern to protect the interest of the Institution.
g. Learned Magistrate has not followed the procedure contemplated under Law in granting permission to investigate the case.
Arguments Advanced at the Bar
4. Heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri V.R.N.Prashanth, learned Standing Counsel for TTD.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that there is no prima facie case against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 505(1)(b) IPC and moreover the petitioner has no intention to commit the same. It is stated that Police themselves filed a requisition bef
The absence of intention to cause fear or alarm is crucial for establishing an offence under IPC Section 505(1)(b).
Allegations must disclose an offence; mere threats without intent to cause alarm do not meet the threshold for criminal intimidation under IPC.
To constitute offences under Sections 469 and 505(2) IPC, there must be intent to harm reputation and the existence of distinct groups, which were not present in this case.
Procedural requirements for non-cognizable offenses and the interpretation of the alleged offense under Sections 290 of IPC and 75(1)(c) of Tamil Nadu City Police Act,1888.
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 com....
The absence of specific allegations in a defamation complaint and unexplained delays in filing can warrant quashing of proceedings as abuses of process of law.
The court quashed proceedings against the accused as allegations did not prima facie constitute an offence under the relevant sections of law.
The court established that for offences under Section 188 IPC, a written complaint from the concerned public servant is mandatory, and without it, the FIRs cannot be maintained. Furthermore, the cour....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
