The court quashed criminal proceedings due to lack of prima facie evidence for the alleged offences under IPC and IT Act, emphasizing the necessity of established legal thresholds.

ORDER

The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , [1. For short ‘the Code’] (for short ‘the Code’) has been filed, by the Petitioner/Accused seeking quashment of the Proceedings against him in CC No.177 of 2020 on the file of the court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 153(A) and 509 IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act 2000-2008.

2. Heard Sri Sasanka Bhuavanagiri, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State. Notice which was sent to respondent No.2 returned with an endorsement ‘refused’. Perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is the sole accused and that the ingredients of the offences lodged against the Petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The de facto complainant/Respondent No.2 is the resident of Harijanapeta, Mutchumilli, Ramachandrapuram Mandal and he is the follower of YSR Congress Party. Learned counsel submits that on 01.05.2020 Petitioner/Accused has posted comments in Face-book insulting Sri Chelluboina Venu Gopala Krishna, MLA of Ramachandrapuram by provoking the issues between the caste and community and that the Petitioner allegedly defamed the name of the wife of the MLA. Learned counsel would submit that the alleged comments are not touching the character of anyone and are not with reference to any class or caste. In the absence of any obscene comments in the social media, the ingredients of the offence under Section 67 of the IT Act are not applicable. Learned counsel would submit that a plain reading of the complaint, ingredients of Sections 153(A) and 509 IPC are clearly absent. Due to political motive, this false case has been filed. Therefore, continuing the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is mere abuse of process of law and prays for quashment of the proceedings against him.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that the Court may pass appropriate Orders since the complaint would not disclose any ingredients to attract the offences lodged against the Petitioner.

5. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

6. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others , [ AIR 1992 SC 604 ] is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows;

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482