O R D E R

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) has been filed by the petitioners/ Accused Nos.1 and 2, to quash the proceedings in Crime No.354 of 2021 of Jaggaiahpet Police Station, Krishna District, registered against the petitioners/A1 and A2 and other accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 153, 120B, 505 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for brevity ‘the ITA, 2000’).

2. Brief facts of the report, preferred by the respondent No.2/ de facto complainant, are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant is doing business in Jaggaiahpet and in Hyderabad; that his father viz. Samineni Udaya Bhanu is elected as Member of Legislative Assembly of Jaggaiahpet for Three (03) times and he has been working as Government Whip for second time; that some people, having bore grudge against the family of respondent No.2/de facto complainant, on 25.09.2021 circulated a post in the social media with a caption that ‘YCP Leader Samineni Udaya Bhanu’s son arrest in drugs case’. It was further written in the said post that the respondent No.2/ de facto complainant caught red-handedly while transporting 60 kgs of Ganja, illegally; that the said post was circulated widely and due to such false propaganda, it damaged the reputation of respondent No.2/ de facto complainant and his father, and on inquiry, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant came to know that the petitioners/A1 and A2 and some others are the conspirators of the said circulation of false news. The case was reported to police and a case in Crime No.354 of 2021 of Jaggaiahpet Police Station was registered for the aforesaid offences and investigated into.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 and A2 would contend that the offence punishable under Section 153 of IPC would not attract as against the petitioners/A1 and A2, for the reason that, there is no provocation to any person, that such provocation caused an offence of rioting. According to him, in order to attract the aforesaid provision, some act of origination of a riot by doing an illegal act, infuriating to the feelings of those, who ultimately come to riot, has to be established. According to the learned counsel, no such rioting has been taken place, and in view of the said reason, the accusation under Section 153 of IPC would not be attracted and the same cannot be invoked as against the petitioners/A1 and A2.

4. On the other hand, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State concedes that the offence under Section 153 of IPC would not attract as against the petitioners/A1 and A2, but in respect of the offence punishable under Section 505 (2) of IPC, it would attract as against the petitioners/A1 and A2, for the reason that, Section 505 (2) of IPC contemplates creating or promoting enmity, hatred, or ill-will between classes or communities and there is specific accusation as against the petitioners/A1 and A2 that they created and promoted false propaganda as against the respondent No.2/complainant and his family, and according to learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor the petitioners/A1 and A2 and the respondent No.2/complainant belonged to two different groups, therefore, the aforesaid offences would attract as against the petitioners/A1 and A2. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 and A2 and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/ State. Perused the material available on record.

6. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that prior to 26.09.2021 at about 10.00 a.m. the respondent No.2/complainant filed a handwritten complaint as against the petitioners/A1 and A2 on the ground that the petitioners/A1 and A2 and other accused conspired together and created an adverse news against him, misusing the electronic devices and media that, the resp