Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
petitioner-accused No.2 – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.794 of 2022
Yes. Under Section 199 CrPC, no court shall take cognizance of an offence under Chapter XXI of IPC except upon a complaint by the aggrieved person. Absence of such complaint renders the prosecution void and without jurisdiction. (Para 9 )
Yes. For offences under Section 505(2) of IPC, sanction under Section 196(1A) of CrPC is mandatory. Without such sanction from the competent authority, the proceedings are vitiated. (Para 10 )
No. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner for offences under Sections 153 and 505(2) IPC. Free speech cannot be stifled by implicating citizens in criminal cases unless the speech has the tendency to affect public order. (Para 11 )
Yes. Where there are no specific allegations and the speech does not have the tendency to affect public order, dragging a person into criminal prosecution amounts to an abuse of process of law. (Para 11 , 12 )
O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.6 of 2022 of P.S. Karimnagar I Town, registered for the offences under Sections 153 , 500, 505(2) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
2. Heard Mr.S.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2.
Perused the record.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the BJP official Spokesperson on 04.01.2022 conducted a press meet at the BJP State Office, Nampally, Hyderabad and made certain remarks against the Commissioner of Police and the said remarks are in the form of creating of conflict of fear atmosphere and it is stated that the petitioner has uploaded the said speech in his GSR TV Telugu YouTube Channel. On the basis of the above allegations, the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint and the same was registered against the petitioner and two others for the offence under Sections 153 , 500, 505(2), 506 of IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a press meet was conducted by accused No.1 and the proceedings of the conduct of meeting was uploaded in the GSR T.V Telugu you tube channel. He further contended that the said press meet of accused No.1 was widely telecasted in all the news channel and the same content was also uploaded in the GSR T.V Telugu you tube channel. He further contended that relaying the proceedings of the press meet conducted by the BJP Official Spokesperson in the youtube channel would not attract the provisions of Sec. 153, 500, 505(2), 506 IPC.
5. He further contended that the act of the respondents in registering a case against the petitioner would amount to curbing the freedom of press in broadcasting the press meet of the Spokesperson of a Political Party, further, no offence is committed by the petitioner to attract the provisions of the Indian Penal Code . He further contended that there was no embargo or restrictions placed by the State or by the police restraining the press, T.V Channels from airing the news conference conducted by the officials Spokesperson of the party. He further contended that the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is a pure abuse of the process of law.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner-accused No.2 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that Section 199 of Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. For the offence under Section 505(2) of IPC, sanction under Section 196(1A) of Cr.P.C. is mandatory, however, in the present case, sanction was not obtained from the competent authority. He further submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner-accused No.2 and the ingredients of offences alleged against him are not made out. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2.
7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioner- accused No.2 and all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. For better adjudication of the matter, Sections 500 , 505(2) of IPC, 199(1) of Cr.P.C. and 196(1A) of Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder:
“
500. Punishment for defamation.—
Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
505(2)Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.— Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
