IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.09.2022 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Crl.O.P.Nos.6367, 6442 & 6356 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.4257, 4267 & 4236 of 2021 A.Zakir Hussian ... Petitioner in all Crl.O.Ps Vs.

1.State by:

The Inspector of Police, B-12, Ukkadam Police Station, Coimbatore.

(Crime No.475 of 2019)

2.P.Gopalakrishnan ... Respondents in Crl.O.P.No.6367 of 2021

1.State by:

The Inspector of Police, B-2, R.S.Puram Police Station, Coimbatore.

(Crime No.1093 of 2019)

2.A.J.Senthil Arasan ... Respondents in Crl.O.P.No.6356 of 2021

1.State by:

The Inspector of Police, B-12, Ukkadam Police Station, Coimbatore.

(Crime No.728 of 2019)

2.T.R.Ravi ... Respondents in Crl.O.P.No.6442 of 2021 PRAYER in all Crl.O.Ps : Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crime Nos.475, 1093 & 728 of 2019 on the file of the 1^st respondent police and quash the same.

In all Crl.O.Ps For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vivekananthan For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran, APP

C O M M O N O R D E R

These Criminal Original Petitions have been preferred to call for the records in Crime Nos.475, 1093 & 728 of 2019 on the file of the 1^st respondent police and quash the same.

2. Heard Mr.R.Vivekananthan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was spreading rumours through Social Media about the Government schemes and created fear among the minds of the public. By such circulation of false rumours in the form of audio recording through Whatsapp, the accused instigated the public against the Government and bothered the public peace. On the above said allegation, a case has been registered against the petitioner under Sections

505(1)(b), 504, 505(2) of I.P.C.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 505(1)(b), 504, 505(2) of I.P.C.; the petitioner had just forwarded the voice message only through his Whatsapp account; therefore, the above sections do not attract the offence committed by the petitioner; he would draw the attention of this Court to the orders passed by this Court in Crl.O.P (MD) No.106 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.78 of 2022 dated 21.01.2022, Crl.O.P.No.22811 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.11921 of 2019, dated 26.08.2019.

(i) Crl.O.P (MD) No.106 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.78 of 2022 dated 21.01.2022, the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

“6.Section 504 of IPC is as follows:~

“504.Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

This provision came up for consideration in quite a few decisions of the Madras High Court. In Muniswami Naicker Vs. P.Kanniappa Naicker (1949) 2 MLJ 767, it was held that the gravamen of the offence under Section 504 of IPC lies in the utterer provoking the victim by his words to commit an immediate breach of the peace. That can only occur if he utters the words in the presence of the victim or has them conveyed to him by letter or messenger. When the accused uttered the abuse in the absence of the complainant, he cannot be convicted under Section 504 of IPC unless he asked his hearers to convey it to the complainant. In Vasireddi Sivalinga Prasad Vs. Emperor (1941) MWN (Crl.) 31, where the accused abused the Zamindarini and her agents in the course of his speech on the inam legislation but neither the zamindarini nor her agents were present at the meeting, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 504 of IPC. In S.Gopal Vs. State (1952 MWN (Crl.) 60), it was held that the only two points necessary or that the