THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.30 of 2025 against the petitioner-accused No.2 on the file of VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 353(1), 308(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’).

2. Heard Mr.Aashir Mehtab Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Shalini Saxena, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him and in fact, the brother of the complainant is running an organization and is collecting money and that he is an accused in (28) cases. He further submitted that accused No.1 is a reporter and that the petitioner herein is accused No.2. The only act committed by the petitioner is that he re-posted a news item in the Facebook. The allegation that the accused No.1 had extracted money and that the offences under Sections 353(1), 308(2) and 351(2) of BNS do not get attracted as per the allegations levelled against the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioner is 68 years old and is a cancer patient, who is facing false allegations just because of re-posting a news item in the Facebook, and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are specific allegations made out against the petitioner and posting of a news item on Facebook and forwarding the message, knowing its contents is also a crime and that it could harm the reputation of another person and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner has re-shared a video clipping on Facebook. Facebook is a powerful social media. In Kishor v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1515, the High Court of Bombay held that:

“The very purpose of WhatsApp status is to convey something to his contacts. It is nothing but a mode of communication with known persons. One puts up the status in order to get a reaction and most of them crave for support. Now-a-days, the people are checking WhatsApp status now and then. One should behave with sense of responsibility while communicating something to others. The applicant cannot shed his primary responsibility by saying about its limited circulation. There is no justification for the applicant to display

such kind of status. Contents of FIR prim a facie, discloses applicant's deliberate and malicious intention to insult the feeling of a group.”

7. The above cited decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand. In the present case also the petitioner has shared a message on Facebook, which is also a prominent social media and thus, the petitioner is not justified in posting objectionable messages in the Facebook. The allegation points out that the said message would harm the reputation and tarnish the image of the de facto complainant and his family. The truth or otherwise of the allegations can be brought out during the course of trial. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this stage. Hence, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the petition by dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioner before the trial court provided he is represented by a counsel before the trial court on every date of hearing and shall appear before the trial court whenever his presence is required during the course of trial.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA October 15, 2025 KTL