The continuation of prosecution based on lack of substantiated allegations constitutes an abuse of process of law.

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Mr.T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 – State.

2. Criminal Petition No.8965 of 2025 is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 ( BNSS ), to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.85 of 2025, pending on the file of Nakrekal Police Station. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 353(1)(c) and 353(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS, 2023’).

3. Criminal Petition No.8966 of 2025 is filed under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023, to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in Crime No.86 of

2025, pending on the file of Nakrekal Police Station. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 353(1)(c)

and 353(2) of BNS, 2023.

4. Criminal Petition No.8989 of 2025 is filed under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023, to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.87 of 2025, pending on the file of Nakrekal Police Station. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 3 53(1)(c) and 353(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3 (1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989.

5. Petitioner in all the aforesaid three Criminal Petitions is one and the same. Crime No.85 of 2025 was registered on the complaint lodged by Municipal Chairperson, Nakrekal Municipality. Crime No.86 of 2025 was registered on the complaint lodged by Congress Party worker. Crime No.87 of 2025 was registered on the complaint lodged by the Director, PACS, Marruru, Nakrekal Mandal.

6. In all the aforesaid complaints, allegation leveled against the petitioner herein is that he has posted a message in Twitter and it is relevant to extract the said message:

Petitioner filed these criminal petitions to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crimes.

7. Mr.T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner never posted the said message in the Twitter as alleged by the complainants in the aforesaid three crimes. Assuming for a moment, if the said message is posted by the petitioner, the contents of the said message lacks the ingredients of Sections 3 53(1)(c) and 353(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3 (1)(u) of the Act, 1989. Petitioner was falsely implicated in the aforesaid three crimes due to political rivalry. With regard to one incident, Police, Nakirekal Police Station, have registered the aforesaid three crimes. Registration of multiple crimes on the basis of one incident is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

8. In the light of the said submissions, it is apt to note that Section 3 53 of BNS, 2023 deals with statements conducing to public mischief and Section 3 (1)(u) of Act, 1989 deals with punishments for offences attrocities and it is relevant to extract the same below:

“353. Statements conducing to public mischief.—(1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, false information, rumour, or report, including through electronic means—

(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air Force of India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or (b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquillity; or (c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other clas