ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Prem Mardi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R.R. Mishra, learned G.P. II for the State.

2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Khunti P.S. Case No. 124 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No. 287 of 2018, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 121A/121/124A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66A and 66F of the Information Technology Act.

3. The prosecution story in brief is that an incident of abduction had taken place on 26.06.2017 of the security personnel attached with Shri Kariya Munda, Member of Parliament. On search made by the Police personnel at village Ghaghra in the District of Khunti they were stopped by the villagers who were variously armed. It has been stated that the Police through loud speakers tried to pacify the villagers in order to make them understand not to take law into their own hands and release the abducted security personnel. Allegation has further been levelled that the Police personnel were verbally abused the whole night and again in the morning the villagers were tried to be persuaded to release the abducted Police personnel and since it failed the assembled crowd were declared as unlawful. The Police were attacked by the villagers with stones, bows and arrows, axes etc. which resulted in some of them sustaining injuries. On secret information it was learnt that the incident happened because the innocent tribals were misled and influenced in the name of Adivasi Mahashabha and A.C. Bharat Sarkar Kutumbh Pariwar who had distorted the Constitution through social media and were spreading anti national feelings as well as disturbing the harmony existing between the different groups and castes.

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Khunti P.S. Case No. 124 of 2018 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 121A/121/124A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66A and 66F of the Information Technology Act.

5. Mr. Prem Mardi, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from the First Information Report prima facie no criminal offence is made out against the petitioners. It has been stated that Pathargari in its strictest sense is not criminal in nature and practicing the same would not invite criminal prosecution. It has further been submitted that there are several types of Pathargaris which are practiced but there is no description by the prosecution as to which form of Pathargari was violated. In fact the non-tribals are not aware about the true meaning and purport of the term Pathargari and which has led to a distorted version in the First Information Report by claiming that the petitioners had committed a seditious act by wrong interpretation of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that describing Pathargari vis-a-vis the constitutional provisions enshrined in the same in a different manner in Facebook would not amount to a crime or an act of sedition against the petitioners or under the provisions of the Information Technology Act. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for an incident which had taken place at village Ghaghra, Khunti merely on the assumption that the villagers have been influenced on the act of the petitioners through Facebook as mere discussion initiated by submitting posts in Facebook would not attract any criminal offence so far as the petitioners are concerned. Mr. Mardi has also referred to the Declaration on Rights of Indigenous People by the United Nation and stated that India was bound by its declaration to promote the indigenous people by accepting the United Nation Resolution. It has further been submitted that Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be maintained in a case of this nature since the petitioners have been unnecessarily prosecuted and therefore this Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing the entire criminal proceedings if the allegat