IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
Abjijith. M., S/o. Balakrishnan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet No. 624 of 2023
Decided on : 26-05-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 153 and 506(i) - Kerala Police Act, 2011 - Section 120(o) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 258 - Threatening messages sent to constitutional authorities via social media - The court addressed whether the accused should face trial or if the case should be prematurely terminated. The court found that the allegations, if accepted, constituted serious offences, and the accused must face trial. (Paras 1, 9, 10, 14)
(B) Discretionary Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that the powers under Section 258 Cr.P.C. should be exercised only in extraordinary situations where continuation of prosecution amounts to an abuse of process. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sent threatening messages to the Additional Private Secretary of the Chief Minister, stating intentions to kill him, leading to the registration of a case. The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that no offences were made out. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations constituted serious threats against a constitutional authority, warranting a trial. The impugned order was upheld. (Paras 9, 14)
Issues: The main issues included whether the allegations constituted offences and if the proceedings should be stopped under Section 258 Cr.P.C. (Paras 1, 4)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations, if true, warranted prosecution, and the powers under Section 258 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. (Paras 8, 14)
Result: Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
Nowadays, it is a trend to send threatening messages and use derogatory statements against constitutional authorities, including the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, Judges, etc., in social media and other forums to get publicity. The police force will be forced to spend their valuable time to find out whether it is for publicity or with a specific motive. After making such statements, the accused will approach the court of law with a petition stating that no offence is made out or raising technical grounds to escape from the prosecution. The question to be decided in this case is whether, in such cases, the accused should face trial or the court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to prematurely terminate such cases.
2. The election result of the Kerala State Legislative Assembly was declared on 02.05.2021, and the Left Democratic Front, led by the then Chief Minister, obtained about 99 seats to form a new government. On 02.05.2021 at 20:22 hours and 22:13 hours, a message came to the Additional Private Secretary to the Chief Minister, Sri. Pinarayi Vijayan from a Mobile number 9074656746 stating that “I will kill Pinarayi Vijayan”. The Additional Private Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister informed the same to Director General of Police. The Director General of Police issued directions to take legal action immediately. Accordingly, Crime No. 309/2021 was registered by the Ernakulam Town South Police Station against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 153 & 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ' IPC ') and also under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (for short 'KP Act'). After investigation, a final report is filed arraigning the petitioner as the accused. Annexure-I is the final report. The petitioner appeared before the trial court and filed an application under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ' Cr.P.C .') to stop the proceedings. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam dismissed that petition as per order dated 12.05.2023 in C.M.P. No.2091/2023 in C.C. No.905/2021. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision Petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if the entire allegations in the final report are accepted, no offences under Sections 153 & 506(i) IPC are attracted. The counsel also submitted that the ingredients of Section 120(o) of the KP Act are also not attracted. It is also contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the only cognizable offence in the final report is under Section 153 IPC . Even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 153 IPC is not attracted. In such circumstances, the registration of the case without orders from the Magistrate under Section 153 Cr.P.C . itself is a reason to quash the proceedings. The counsel also submitted that the person who received the alleged SMS from the petitioner is the Additional Private Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that his statement was not recorded. Yet another contention raised by the petitioner is that the Ernakulam Town South Police has no territorial jurisdiction to register the FIR because the SMS was received at Thiruvananthapuram.
5. The Senior Public Prosecutor, Smt. Seetha S., refuted the contentions of the counsel for the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a serious case in which the petitioner sent an SMS to the Additional Private Secretary of the Hon'ble Chief Minister stating that he would kill the Chief Minister. The petitioner is not an illiterate person. He is an employee in a bank. In such circumstances, this Court may not quash the proceedings in this case.
6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. The impugned order is an order passed under Section 258 Cr.P.C . Section


Threatening messages to constitutional authorities constitute serious offences, necessitating trial rather than premature termination of proceedings.
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....
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.
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance the fundamental right to freedom of speech with the State's power to regulate agitational rights, and the limitations on the....
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.