The central legal point established in the given judgment is the requirement to show that the fear or alarm induced a person to commit an offence against the State or public tranquility to establish the offence under section 505 RPC, emphasizing the significance of intent and mens rea in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY DHAR, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged FIR No. 47/2013 for offence under 505 of RPC registered with Police Station, Shaheed Gunj, Srinagar.

2. As per the impugned FIR, Daily newspaper ‘Young Bites’ had, in its edition dated 13th July, 2013 on page (7), published a news item under the caption “grenade blast kills four tourists in Kashmir hotel, four women injured.” As per the impugned FIR, the said news item was published in the newspaper with an intention to create scare amongst the tourists planning to visit Kashmir Valley.

3. The petitioner, who happens to be the owner-cum-Managing Director of the newspaper Young Bites, has challenged the impugned FIR on the grounds that the allegations made therein do not make out any offence against him; that a corrigendum in respect of the subject news item had been issued in the same newspaper on first page in its daily edition, dated 14th June, 2013, i.e. on the very next day, but without taking that into account, the impugned FIR has been lodged which is not sustainable in law and that the ingredients of the offence under section 505 of RPC are not made out from the allegations made in the impugned FIR.

4. Response to the petition has been filed by the respondent-State. In its response, besides narrating the allegations made in the impugned FIR, it has been submitted that after completing the investigation, the matter was placed before the District Magistrate and sanction for prosecution against the petitioner had been obtained. It has been further submitted that after investigation of the case, offence under section 505RPC stands established against the petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the Case Diary.

6. The first contention that has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the contents of the impugned FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not satisfy the ingredients of offence under section 505 of RPC and, as such, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

7. In order to determine the merits of the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel, it would be apt to notice the legal position as regards contours of Section 505 of the RPC. This Court, while interpreting the aforesaid provision in the case of Mohammad Salim Pandith vs. State of J&K and Another, 2020 (5) JKJ 209, has, after noticing the aforesaid provision, observed as under:

“8. Clause (b) quoted above, on which prosecution basis itself, is in two parts. The first part of the clause deals with a situation where an accused person makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report with intent to cause, fear or alarm to the public or any section of the public whereas the second part of that clause is confined to making, publishing or circulating any statement, rumour or report which is likely to cause fear or alarm to the public or any section of the public. In both the situations, the fear or alarm must induce a person to commit an offence against the State or against public tranquility.

9. As per Oxford's Dictionary, word “induce” means succeed in persuading or leading (someone) to do something. Similarly, Black's Law Dictionary defines “inducement” as the act or process of enticing or persuading another person to take a certain course of action. Thus, making, publishing or circulating a statement or rumour with intent to create a fear or alarm to the public must persuade any person to commit an offence against the State. Mere making or publishing of a statement or rumour creating fear or alarm in the absence of inducement of a member of public to commit an offence against the State would not satisfy the ingredients of offence under section 502(1)(b) of RPC.”

8. From the aforesaid enunciation of law on the subject, it is clear that, in order to satisfy the ingredients of Section 505(1)(b) of the RPC, it has to be shown from the contents of the FIR and the material collected by the investigating agency