JUDGMENT :-

(Prayer: Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to First Information Report in Crime No.136 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.)

1. This criminal original petition has been filed for quashing the First Information Report in Crime No.136 of 2020 registered on the file of the Inspector of Police, Melapalayam police station, Tirunelvlei District for the offences under Sections 292A, 295A and 505(2) of I.P.C.

2. The defacto complainant is the second respondent herein. He is a member of Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam. After watching the video uploaded by the petitioner on the YouTube platform on 03.04.2020 at 11.00 PM, he lodged information before the first respondent on the next day leading to registration of the impugned FIR. In his complaint, the second respondent alleged that the petitioner had falsely spoken that the attendees of Tablighi Jamaat conference held in March 2020 at New Delhi were spreading Covid-19 ; he also insulted Islam with an intention to create ill-will and discord between Muslims and non-Muslims.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and contended that the petitioner as a responsible YouTuber and commentator on current affairs had merely exercised his right to free speech. According to him, the petitioner had not committed any of the offences set out in the FIR.

4. The learned Advocate General called upon this Court to bear in mind the conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner after obtaining anticipatory bail from the Principal Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, did not surrender and execute sureties. That is why, he has been arrested. The first respondent had filed an application for taking the petitioner to police custody. The jurisdictional magistrate is actively seized of the petition. Investigation commenced only recently. This Court may therefore allow the legal process to take its normal course. The petitioner is a prominent social media personality. He ought to have been responsible while putting out his views. The video presentation runs to twenty seven minutes. The petitioner has used potentially provocative expressions. It is not necessary that public tranquility must have been actually disturbed as a result of the petitioner's act. It is enough if it is shown that there was a likelihood of breach of peace. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2021) 1 SCC 1 (Amish Devgan vs. Union of India).

5. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant apart from adopting the stand of the learned Advocate General added that the complaint makes out the offences under Section 153 A of IPC and Section 54 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. According to him, the petitioner had conducted himself with scant regard for truth. He tried to create a false alarm as if because of the attendees of the aforesaid conference, the pandemic would sweep the entire country. The presentation of the petitioner was replete with references to Islam and terrorism. Any normal person watching the video would develop feelings of ill-will and hatred towards Muslims. The Constitution of India imposes a duty on the citizens to uphold the pluralistic character of the society. The defacto complainant had only fulfilled this duty by lodging the impugned complaint. He called for dismissal of the quash petition.

6. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

7. Only in the second half of March, 2020, the nation became aware of the attack of Covid-19 pandemic. The Government of India announced stiff lock down measures. Life came to a complete standstill. Congregations and meetings were totally banned. When it became known that a huge conference was held at Nizamuddin Markaz, New Delhi in March 2020 and that it was attended by delegates from all over the world and that many of them were still s