ORDER

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.649/2016 of Manantoddy Police Station. The above case was originally registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 153 and

153A(1) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. On 07.09.2016, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant filed a complaint before the Circle Inspector, Mananthavady alleging that, some members in the whatsapp group of the revenue staffs in which petitioner is the Admin posted some comments against the Chief Minister and his stand against celebrating Onam during duty time. The complaint against the petitioner is that the petitioner who is said to be Administrator (Admin) of the whatsapp group of the revenue staffs is spreading enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion and with the sole intention of defacing the Chief Minister of the State of Kerala and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony of the community at large. Annexure-A1 is the complaint. According to the petitioner, he is neither the Administrator nor in any way connected with the whatsapp group of the revenue staff. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent defacto complainant, who is not in good terms with the petitioner, was waiting to trap the petitioner with an ulterior motive and since the petitioner is a Government employee, the 2nd respondent defacto complainant initiated a false criminal case against him to remove him from the service. Based on the complaint, Annexure-A2 FIR was registered by the Manantoddy Police Station. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations in Annexures-A1 and A2 are accepted, no offence is made out. Hence this Criminal Miscellaneous Case.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

4. When this Criminal Miscellaneous Case came up for consideration on 06.08.2020, this Court passed the following order:

‘I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor in this matter. After having heard both sides, I am of the opinion that it is only just and reasonable that the matter is investigated and the outcome of investigation is reported to this Court. It is submitted on behalf of the State that Section 153A of IPC stands already deleted and the investigation survives only as regards the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 153 of IPC. It was further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation could be completed at the earliest point of time. I hope that the investigation could be completed within a month. It is directed that the final report shall, however, be submitted only after taking instruction from this Court.

Post on 08.09.2020.’

5. From the above, it is clear that, what remains is only Section 153 IPC. Section 153 IPC reads like this:

‘153. Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot—if rioting be committed; if not committed.—Whoever malignantly, or wantonly by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed, shall, if the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the offence of rioting be not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.’

6. This Court in Sanjeev S v. State of Kerala [2023(3) KHC 324] considered the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 153 IPC. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment.

‘6. The essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 153 IPC are as follows :- 1. The accused did an illegal act.

2. The act was done malignantly or wantonly. 3. The act was done with the intention to provoke or knowing that it will provoke a person to cause the offence of rioting.

7. The word malignantly and wantonly are not used synony