The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the ingredients of the provisions and the need for a nexus between the act alleged and the offence imputed by the police in determining the applicability of the offences under the Kerala Police Act.

ORDER :

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the entire proceedings in crime 401/2020 of Kunnikode police station, Kollam Rural, which was registered on 22.03.2020 alleging offence under Section 118(a) of the Kerala Police Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. It is a crime registered suo motu by the Grade Sub Inspector Ramesh Kumar alleging that the petitioner had, on 21.3.2020 after 20:50 hours, made a Facebook post in his personal account stating that there is a medicinal preparation for defending the corona virus and thus he made false rumours through social media and made attempts to derail the functioning of the health service and thus committed offence under Section 118(a) of the Act. Thereafter the Investigating Officer sent a report to the court deleting Section 118(a) but adding Sections 118(b) and 120(o) of the Act. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the proceedings contending that the offence under Sections 118(b) and 120(o) of the Act will not be attracted, that he had never made such a post as a medicine for Covid but it is an immunity booster only, that some dicoction is made using herbs etc. Such immunity boosters are in use in Tamil Nadu; Ministry of Ayush also has acknowledged such immunity boosters and the post advised people, in case of fever, to seek medical assistance. Moreover, referring to Annexure-A7 he said that not only in the social media, such items are appearing in Kerala Kaumudi newspaper also and there is absolutely no meaning in proceeding against him alleging offence under Sections 118(b) and 120(o) of the Act.

2. The subject matter of the crime is a post made by the petitioner who is named in the FIR as the accused in his personal Facebook account with the following statement: That Tamil Nadu could effectively defend spread of corona virus to a great extent; on detailed study it came out that, that Government had encouraged distribution of 'Astrident juice nilavemb kiriyath kashayam', which was very effective. Such a preparation can be prepared simply at home with the given nine herbs by making in a powder form and then making it as a dicoction. Names of the herbs are also given in the post. Beneath the post it is stated that if one who takes the dicoction feels fever or other discomforts, he should consult a doctor. Annexure-A5 is a news item appeared in Outlook, where he stated that Tamil Nadu has decided to distribute 'Kabasura Kudineer mix' through Government agencies. Annexure-A5(2) is another publication by the Indian Institute of Information Technology and Management, Kerala has developed a semantic search engine to enable researchers to get deeper insights into scientific studies, especially when the need to find an early solution to the Covid-19 crisis resulted in a large set of complex and scientific information. It is stated that the search engine will guide the researchers to the right information very fast. This makes easy the contextual search of information from the vast domain of scientific literature. A good initiative in the fight against Covid times, as such Ayurveda tools can help extract the contextual insights from research articles, said Saji Gopinath, CEO, Kerala Startup Mission and Director of Indian Institute of Management Kerala Mission.

3. Section 18(b) of the Act says that any person who knowingly spreads rumours or gives false alarm to mislead the police, fire brigade or any other essential service is guilty under Section 118. Similarly, Section 120(o) of the Police Act says that if any person causing, through any means of communication, a nuisance of himself to any person by repeated or undesirable or anonymous call, letter, writing, message, email or through a messenger is guilty of Section 120 of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not understood as to how offences under Sections 118(b) and 120(o) of the Act would be attracted in the given circ