THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.10331 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner – accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.10888 of 2022 on the file of the learned XII Additional Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 505(2), 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Neelam Bhargava Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that it is only a statement made through whatsapp against the Ruling Party and it is just a comment passed The then Chief Minister and that it does not instigate any rivalry against between two groups and that the messages would disappear after 24 hours, so nothing is there on social media to affect the public peace and that the petitioner has not committed any breach of peace. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed. He further relied upon the case of Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 431and A.

Revanth Reddy, Hyderabad Vs. State of Telangana

4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the said case laws are not relevant to the present case and that in A. Revanth’s Reddy case (supra), it was filed under Section 505 (1) of IPC, while the present case is filed under Section 505(2) IPC. Hence, the case facts do not attract in the present case. He further submitted that the allegations clearly make out an offence against the petitioner to promote hatred between the two groups. Therefore he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The record discloses that the petitioner has posted certain messages on Whatsapp, his ID is revealed as ‘@ Srinivas1BJP and the allegations are made against another political party.

7. In Bilal Ahmed’s case (supra), it is a news item telecast against an Army Personnel in a TV Channel. Thus, it is not between two groups. Hence, it was held that there is no news to promote enmity between two groups. Therefore, the allegations were

2 Criminal Petition No.3653 of 2015

quashed against the petitioner. But in the present case the allegations are by one group on the other group, so the same is not applicable.

8. As rightly pointed out by the Additional Public Prosecutor, in the case of A. Revanth’s Reddy (supra), the allegations were under Section 505(1) of IPC, while in the present case the alleged offence falls under Section 505(2) of IPC. Hence, the same is not applicable to the present case. The truth or otherwise in the allegations would be brought out during the course of trial.

9. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is disposed of dispensing with the attendance of the petitioners before the trial Court unless they are specifically called for by the trial Court during the course ofs trial and provided that they are represented by a counsel on every date of hearing.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date: 28.08.2025 ds