ORDER:

The petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.93 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Palakol, for offences punishable under Sections 153-A, 500, 505(1)(b)(c) IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

2. The allegations in the complaint are that the petitioner had posted messages on the social media criticizing the Government and various social welfare schemes being undertaken by the Government, the Grama Sachivalayam system etc., which shows opposition to the people of Andhra Pradesh, democracy and the Indian Constitution. On the basis of this complaint, given by the 3rd respondent herein, Crime No.155 of 2020 was registered with the Palakol Town Police Station and a charge sheet was filed after investigation. Cognizance of this charge sheet was taken and proceedings were initiated in C.C.No.93 of 2020 by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Palakol.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court to quash and set aside the said case on the ground that the allegations in the charge sheet would not make out a case against the petitioner in terms of the above offences.

4. Smt. Jagarlamudi Koteswari Devi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the posts made on social media were criticizing the Government and not trying to bring anybody into disrepute or cause defamation to any person. She would submit that such criticism cannot be treated as an offence under the law.

5. Sri Ashok Kondeti, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that the messages which were the subject matter of the investigation were not properly mentioned in the writ petition and sought to place additional messages which are said to be the subject matter of the investigation. He would submit that the contents of the posts of social media by the petitioner would clearly show that the intention of the petitioner was to bring disrepute to the Government and cause ill-will between various groups of persons. He would further submit that the petitioner who has admitted to being a member and sympathizer of a political party, in the opposition in the State, has made the social posts only for the purpose of creating ill-will between groups and to bring the Government into disrepute. He would submit that in such circumstances, the offences set out in the charge sheet are clearly made out and, in any event, a trial in the matter would resolve these issues. He relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., vs. Akhil Sharda and Ors.,1 to contend that consideration of the allegations in the posts made in social media by the petitioner, would amount to a mini trial and the same is not permissible.

1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820

Consideration of the Court:

6. The relevant provisions of law are:

153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.-

(1) Whoever—

(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, or (c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to us