Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 21000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
Commune Media Pvt Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Cuddalore Police Station – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.16373 of 2023 | Crl.MP.No.10419 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Nithesh Natarajan, M/s.Harikrishnan Rajagopalan
For the Respondents: Mr.R.VinothRaja
The judgement underscores that freedom of speech must not be curtailed absent clear evidence of intent to provoke violence or disorder.
Headnote:This case addresses the issue of freedom of speech and expression in relation to a complaint leading to the registration of an FIR under IPC Sections 153, 504, 505(1)(b), and 505(ii). The petitioner claims that they merely reported news on public domain matters. The court found no evidence of intention to incite violence, clarifying that expressions of political opinion by journalists should not be suppressed. The judgement emphasizes the importance of free speech as a cornerstone of democracy. The FIR was quashed as no offence was substantiated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fir quashed, petition allowed. (Para 12) |
O R D E R
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR registered in Cr.No.220 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent who is working as a Village Administrative Officer, Chidambaram Town has lodged a complaint alleging that on 29.06.2023 at about 09.00 a.m., when he was surveilling in the bus stand at Chidambaram, he had heard from the general public that the police officials and the Hindu Religious and Endowment Charitable Board officials trespassed into the Kanagasabai of Natarajar Temple at Chidambaram and attacked Dikshidhars and also cut their sacred thread and it should be prevented. When the second respondent questioned them from where he got this information for which they required the social domain called Commune Media Private Limited in which already the news published for general public. Only because of the said public domain, the false news has been spread over the entire society and due to which there would be communal clash. Hence, the complaint.
3. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent has registered an FIR in Cr.No.220 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 153, 504 , 505(1)(b) of IPC and 505 (ii) of as against the petitioner namely Commune Media Pvt Ltd.
4. A perusal of records revealed that even according to the second respondent, he had heard about the content spoken by the general public as if they received the information from the public domain of the petitioner in respect of the police officials and the officials of the Hindu Religious and Endowment Charitable Board went into the the Kanagasabai of Natarajar Temple at Chidambaram and attacked Dikshidhars.
5. A perusal of the Article published by the petitioner revealed that in respect of new in Tamilnadu that the officials of the Hindu Religious and Endowment Charitable Board and police officials forcibly entered into Kanagasabai of Natarajar Temple at Chidambaram and assaulted the Dikshidhars during Aani Thirumanjanam Festival (Mzp jpUk”;rdk; jpUehs;)/ Likewise, all the newspapers including several individuals in their names, Thanthi TV , Hindu Tamil News Paper published the said news.
Infact, Thanthi TV also exhibited the videograph.
6. The relevant portion of the provision under Section 153 of IPC can be extracted here under:
153. Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot-if rioting be committed-if no committed- Whoever, malignantly, or wantonly , by doing anything which is illegal, gives 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 on one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the offence is rioting be not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. .
The petitioner has just published the news as like other reporters. As per the news, no ingredients available to attract the offence under Section 153 of IPC .
7. In so far as offence punishable under Section 153 A of IPC is concerned there are no ingredients to attract the said offence. None of the statements contained in the report were made or directed at promoting enmity or hatred or ill-will between the groups or prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony or which may have affected public tranquility, much less between any religious groups, nor did the petitioner do anything prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. On perusal of the news item published by the petitioner, there is nothing to show that that the petitioner had published the report with the intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence which is sine qua non for attracting the provision of Section
153A of IPC .
8. The offence under Sections 501(1) and (2) of IPC , are not attracted in the present case as the petitioner h
