Back
G. JAYACHANDRAN
V. Kannan @ Kanal Kannan – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Chennai – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This petition is filed to quash C.C. No. 5633 of 2023 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, wherein the petitioner facing trial for the alleged offences under Sections 153, 505(1)(b), 505(2) of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Kumaran, District Secretary of Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam gave a complaint stating that You Tube channel administered by the petitioner herein under the name of “Mai Chennai-360” had uploaded his speech with intent to provoke, riot and to cause fear to some Section of the public and to induce others to commit an offence against the public tranquillity. Alleging that his speech in the You Tube Channel had created enmity and hatred between classes, he sought for action against the petitioner. The respondent police has registered the complaint in Crime No. 78 of 2022 under Sections 153, 505(i)(b) and 505(2) of IPC and taken up for investigation.
3. On perusing the speech of the petitioner circulated through You Tube and recorded the statements of witnesses, Final Report filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the same was taken on file in C.C. No
The court upheld the fundamental right to freedom of speech, ruling that the petitioner's speech did not incite public disorder or hatred, and the complainant lacked standing to file the complaint.
Statements made in interviews, though scandalous, do not constitute offences under Sections 504 and 505(2) of IPC without intent to provoke or create disharmony.
The judgment established that to prove an offence under Section 153A IPC, there must be evidence of promoting enmity between different groups, and mere statements or social media posts may not be suf....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of obtaining sanction from the State government for offences punishable under section 153-A of IPC as per Section 196 of Cr.P.C.
A speech made in a private meeting does not constitute an offence under Section 505(1)(b) IPC if it is not likely to induce public alarm, and fair criticism of judicial decisions is protected under c....
The court emphasized the need to protect freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and determined the FIR lacked basis for criminal charges under Sections 353(2) and 505(2).
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
