IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.SUJATHA, J.
Chalasani Ajay Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The State Of A.P. and Others - Respondents
Criminal Petition No.226 of 2020, Criminal Petition No. 225 of 2020
Decided on : 24-02-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Criminal petitions filed to quash proceedings in FIR No. 10 of 2020 for alleged offences under Sections 469 and 505(2) IPC - Allegations do not constitute offences as there was no intent to harm reputation or promote enmity - Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of court. (Paras 2, 4, 17)
(B) Forgery - Definition and intent - To attract Section 469 IPC, there must be intent to harm reputation - Mere forgery without such intent does not constitute an offence. (Paras 14, 15)
(C) Public Mischief - Section 505(2) IPC requires existence of two distinct groups for promoting enmity - No such groups exist in this case, hence no offence is made out. (Paras 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners are accused of posting a morphed photo of a police officer during a protest, allegedly intending to instigate violence. The FIR was filed based on a complaint regarding this act. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found no intent to harm reputation or promote enmity, thus quashing the FIR against the petitioners. (Paras 17)
Issues: Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in FIR No. 10 of 2020 are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (Para 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations did not disclose any offence, and continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law, justifying quashing under Section 482. (Paras 17)
Result: Criminal petitions allowed; proceedings quashed.
ORDER :
These Criminal Petitions are filed by different petitioners under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in FIR.No.10 of 2020, dated 12.02.2020 on the file of Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada. Hence I feel it appropriate to decide both the cases by way of this common order.
2. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.225 of 2020 is accused No.1 and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.226 of 2020 is accused No.4. The 2nd respondent herein is the defacto complainant. The 2nd respondent has submitted a complaint dated 12.01.2020 to the Station House Officer, Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada stating that he is a working president of City Police Officers Association. As the residents of Amaravati, with the support of the political parties have conducted a rastha roko on 10.01.2020 at 03.00 p.m., at Bundar road, Vijayawada city with huge gathering of more than 2000 to 3000 women without permission of the Police, the Police have obstructed and tried to prevent them, but, as they have abused the Police, the Police took them into custody and shifted them to Police Station. It is further stated that the accused have morphed a photo of a female Police who was discharging her duties preventing a female protestor to that of a male police preventing the female protestor. The accused are alleged to have deliberately posted the morphed photo in facebook on 10.01.2020 with an intention to instigate the protestors and provoke them to take revenge against the Government and as well as the Police, thereby causing law and order problem. Stating thus, the 2nd respondent requested the Police to take action against the accused, pursuant to which, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.10 of 2020 on the file of Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada city under Sections 469, 505(2) read with Section 34 of IPC. Requesting to quash the aforesaid case, the petitioners have filed the present petitions.
3. When these criminal petitions came up for hearing on 20.01.2020, this Court has granted an interim stay of the proceedings in FIR.No. 10 of 2020 on the file of Suryaraopet Police Station, Krishna District.
4. During the course of arguments, Sri. Ganta Rama Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that none of the allegations made in the FIR constitute any offences punishable under Sections 469, 505(2) read with 34 IPC. The allegation made against the petitioners under Section 469 of IPC pertains to ‘forgery for the purpose of harming reputation’ and a bear perusal of the definition of ‘forgery’ defined under Section 463 of IPC would show that the petitioners do not have any intent to cause damage or injury either to public in general or to any person in particular. There was no intention on behalf of the petitioners to harm the reputation of any party and there is no material in support of any violence breaking out because of the alleged act. Relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Binu K. Sam Vs. State of Kerala and others ( Crl.M.C.No.1382 of 2016, dated 09.04.2021 ),learned Senior Counsel submitted that the intention to harm the reputation of a party by forgery is a sine qua non for attracting Section 469 of IPC. As no complainant has come forward alleging that the forgery by the petitioner has harmed reputation of any of the party or person, the ingredients of Section 469 are not applicable.
5. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence punishable under Section 502(2) of IPC which pertains to statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. To constitute an offence punishable under Section 505(2) of IPC, there must be 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- wi
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.
The court held that allegations arising from a civil dispute cannot constitute a criminal offence, and continuation of such proceedings amounts to an abuse of the legal process.
Criminal proceedings cannot be pursued when the matter is sub judice in a civil context, as it constitutes an abuse of process of law.
The absence of intention to cause fear or alarm is crucial for establishing an offence under IPC Section 505(1)(b).
Petitioner has not been confined for illegal purpose amounting to commission of offence. As such, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the liberty granted to him by filing the complaint under Sect....
The court ruled that raising a flexi for public issues does not constitute promoting enmity under IPC, and continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process.
The court established that civil disputes should not be mischaracterized as criminal offenses to avoid abuse of the judicial process.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.