JUDGMENT

REVATI MOHITE DERE,J. - Since the issues/questions involved in both the aforesaid petitions are similar, they are heard together.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith in both the aforesaid petitions, with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned A.P.P waives notice on behalf of the respondent-State, in both the petitions.

4. The petitioner in both the petitions is same. By the aforesaid writ petitions preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C'), the petitioner in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 21880/2022, seeks quashing of the FIR being C.R. No. 0291/2022 registered with the Kothrud Police Station, Pune, for the alleged offences punishable under Ss. 153A(1)(a), 153A(1)(b) of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 21886/2022, seeks quashing of the FIR being C.R. No. 0489/2022 registered with the Warje Malwadi Police Station, Pune, for the alleged offences punishable under Ss. 153A(1)(a), 153A(1)(b) and 505(2) of the IPC.

5. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that taking the prosecution case as it stands, no offences as alleged are disclosed against the petitioner in both the C.Rs. According to the learned counsel, the FIRs. are politically motivated, lodged with the sole intent of harassing and browbeating the petitioner, who is a member of the Congress Party, from expressing his opinion. He submitted that infact, the petitioner came to be arrested by the police in one of the C.Rs. and was in police custody for about two days, without any justification. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, actively involved in social work. Mr. Desai submitted that the petitioner has been falsely and malafidely implicated, only because he questioned the statement of a sitting Cabinet Minister of the State. He submitted that registration of a crime for criticizing the speech given by a people's representative, clearly violates the petitioner's fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under the Constitution. He submitted that it is clearly evident that the FIRs. have been registered at the behest of persons affiliated to the ruling party in the State. According to the learned counsel, since none of the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out, registration of the FIRs. was unwarranted and as such the said FIRs. be quashed and set-aside.

6. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2007) 5 SCC 1, Balwant Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 214, Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) 7 SCC 431, Manik Taneja and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Anr. (2015) 7 SCC 423 and of the Bombay High Court in Sunaina Holey v. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1127.

7. Dr. Saraf, learned Advocate General opposed the petitions. He submitted that having regard to the provisions of law, the Sec. have been rightly invoked by the police. He submitted that the video uploaded by the petitioner was likely to promote enmity between different groups in the society and as such, to prevent the same, the police took prompt steps in registering the FIRs, and apprehending the petitioner. He submitted that it was necessary to do so, to ensure that public tranquility is not disturbed or likely to be disturbed, having regard to the situation prevailing then. He submitted that no interference was warranted by this Court, either under its writ jurisdiction or under its inherent powers.

FACTS :

8. A few facts as are necessary to decide the petitions are as under :

WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 21880/2022:

8.1 The complainant-Abhishek Ashok Kangane, is a resident of Kothrud, Pune. According to the complainant, whilst he was browsing his Twitter account i.e. @kanganebjp, he saw a