Responsibility for online communication arises, and posts inciting hatred may justify legal repercussions under relevant laws.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner – accused seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.302 of 2025 on the file of P.S. Kalwakurthy, Nagarkurnool District, registered for the offences under Sections 305 (e), 352 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNS, 2023”) and Sections 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 66C of IT Act, 2008 .

2. Heard the submissions of Sri K.Krishna Shrawan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 –

State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged and that he has only mentioned the factual aspect on his whatsapp message and that he has not resorted to any abuse in the name of caste, neither he has humiliated nor he has threatened anyone and has not disturbed any public peace. He further submitted that many newspapers have published the news in this regard that the de facto complainant was removed from service but however, he was taken back and the same thing was shared as a message by him on whatsapp and he never entertained any evil intention or mens rea in posting the said message. The message also does not aim at humiliation in the name of caste, and that the ingredients of theft are nowhere to be seen in the complaint, however, the FIR is registered under Section 305 (e) of BNS also, which shows that the complaint has been lodged and the case has been registered with a malafide intention against the petitioner. The learned petitioner counsel relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra , [(2024) 4 SCC 156], prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed submitting that the petitioner has gained access to a document, which is a communication between the Commissioner of Municipal Council to the Director of Municipal Administration. It will be in the official records. The contents of the said letter would reveal that the services of the victim were surrendered to the office of the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Telangana for a replacement, alleging that there was some inconvenience and that the victim was raising voice while talking to his superior authorities and he is also instigating the other staff against the authorities. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the said letter is an official communication between two authorities and nobody would have access to the said document, that means the petitioner herein has committed theft of the said document. He further argued that the accused has posted the message pointing out certain allegations against the municipal authorities, which provokes hatred against the said authorities. He further submitted that the content of the whatsapp status can be a mode of communication is not tenable and that the applicant cannot shed away his responsibility with the plea of limited circulation and that a responsible citizen cannot post any message as he likes on whatsapp which is prone to wide circulation and demoralize anyone with that message. He further has opposed to the decision relied upon by the petitioner counsel and he relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Kishor v. State of Maharashtra , [2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1515]

Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. In Javed Ahmad Hajam’s case (supra 1), it was held that when a message was posted on whatsapp “14th August – Happy Independence Day Pakistan.” and it contained a picture