IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prasanna B. Varale, S. M. Modak, JJ.
Amol Kashinath Vyavhare - Appellant
Versus
Purnima Chaugule Shrirangi - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2954 of 2018
Decided On : 06-05-2022
Publication - Disharmony amongst Police Staff - Indian Penal Code - Section 505(2), Section 500, Section 501, Section 502
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the publication of news suggesting disharmony amongst police staff attached to 2 offices under the Police Commissionerate, Solapur. The Deputy Commissioner of Police-Crime lodged a complaint against the petitioner, who was the reporter of the news articles. The police registered an offense under Sections 505(2), 500, 501, and 502 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the news articles did not satisfy all the ingredients of Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, as the alarming news or rumor did not relate to the specified subjects. The court also ruled that the procedure for initiating a case under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code was not followed, and the entire FIR consisting of offenses under Sections 500, 501, 502, and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code was quashed and set aside.
Issues: The issues involved were whether the publication of news suggesting disharmony amongst police staff attracted the provisions of Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code and whether the police case was maintainable for an offense under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code and the procedural requirements for initiating a case under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the FIR, and discharged the rule.
JUDGMENT
S.M. Modak, J. - A short but an important issue which has arisen in this Petition, and it is when there is a publication of news suggesting disharmony amongst the police staff attached to 2 Offices under the Police Commissionerate, Solapur, whether it attracts the provisions of Section 505(2) of Indian Penal Code. Along with it, another issue involved is whether police case is maintainable if offense under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed in respect of public servant.
2 There is a background for registration of FIR. There were two news articles published in the Edition dated 8 October 2017 for Dainik Pudhari and the Edition dated 22 May 2018 for the same newspaper.
'In the news dated 8 October 2017, the news was published about the incident thattook place when there was a raid on Sawan Hotel, Solapur by the police attached to City Crime Branch. At that time, one police personnel on a uniform was heavily drunk in that hotel, and there was a videography and it was circulated on social media. On account of that, the news further says that there were a tussle in between the Office of Deputy Commissioner of Police and the police attached to Crime Branch.'
Similarly, the news article is published in the Edition dated 22 May 2018. It says that :-
'the police staff attached to Crime Branch Office is not following the instructions given by the Senior Officers of Crime Branch, but they are having a loyalty to Deputy Commissioner of Police.'
3 On his background, the Deputy Commissioner of Police-Crime Smt. Pournima Chaugule Shringi lodged complaint with Sadar Bazar Police Station Solapur City on 1 June 2018. It was lodged against present Petitioner, who is shown as the Reporter of those two news articles. Police have registered an offense under Sections 505(2), 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code.
Submissions
4 On this background, the Petitioner has approached this Court in a writ jurisdiction. Already, this Court has granted a stay from filing of charge- sheet. We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and learned APP Shri Yagnik. Rule. The petitioner made following two submissions :-
(i) If the averments in the FIR and two news articles are perused, it does not disclose an offense under section 505(2) of Indian Penal Code. According to him, the publication must lead to spreading a rumor or an alarming news and it must pertains to a religion, race, language or community.
(ii) There is a prescribed procedure if Criminal Law has to be set in motion for an offense under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code pertaining to defamation of public servant. The same has not been followed.
5 In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment in case of Bilal Ahmad Kaloo Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 431 and a judgment in case of KK Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2018) 6 Supreme Court Cases 676.
6 As against this learned APP Shri Yagnik vehemently opposed the grant of reliefs. According to him, a publication in order to fall under the provisions of section 505(2) of Indian Penal Code, it need not pertains to two religions and even if it pertains to the employees of one Establishment, still, the provisions are attracted. He also submitted that even if the Petitioner has any grievance about the provisions of Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, he can agitate his case and can make out a case under any of the exceptions to Section 499 of Indian Penal Code. To buttress his submission, he relied upon a judgment in case of Amish Devgan Vs. Union of India, (2021) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1.
7 Before going into the facts and ratios laid down in above judgments, it will be material to consider the provisions and ingredients of Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
8 The following are the main ingredients :
(A) There must be either publication circulation of any statement or report.
(B) It must contain rumor or alarming news.
(C) It must be with the intention to create or prom
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.