THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.1581 OF 2021

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking quashment of proceedings in CC No.1225 of 2020, pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Prohibition and Excise Offences) at Nalgonda, against the petitioner-

accused No.5.

2. Heard Mr.Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-

State and perused the record.

3. The Sub-Inspector of Police-K.Ravi Kumar-respondent No.2 lodged a complaint stating that accused No.1 posted two photographs of a person and the severed head of a human. The photos were posted on Facebook with the tag “SHER A TIPU”. According to the complaint, the photographs belongs to a person named Mosin, who is an accused in a murder case, and the head portion is that of one Ramesh.

4. According to the complainant, the said photos were viewed by several people, and this petitioner had liked the posts. In the said circumstances, the petitioner was added as an accused, along with others, for the offences under Sections 153-A, 295-A, 504, 505 and 506 read with Section 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7(1) of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the ‘like’ on the Facebook account by the petitioner will not amount to any of the offences as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar and another, wherein was stated as follows:

“…13. Before parting with the case, we would like to sound a word of caution that the Magistrates who have been conferred with the power of taking cognizance and issuing summons are required to carefully scrutinize whether the allegations made in the complaint proceeding meet the basic ingredients of the offence;

whether the concept of territorial jurisdiction is satisfied; and further whether the accused is really required to be summoned. This has to be treated as the primary judicial responsibility of the court issuing process”.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner had liked a post on Facebook, which depicted a person who had committed the murder of another.

7. To attract an offence under Section 295-A of IPC, there should be a deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens by insulting their religion or religious beliefs. Merely liking a post would not amount to any of the acts punishable under Section 295-A of IPC. Further, there is no threat made by the petitioner to infer the offence under Sections 504, 505 and

506 read with Section 109 of IPC.

8. To attract an offence under Section 153-A of IPC, the person should have promoted enmity between different groups, specifically on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or any other factor. It also penalizes actions that are prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.

9. No such acts are attributed in this petition. The only allegation, as already discussed, is that the petitioner liked the comment which was posted by accused No.1. None of the ingredients on the alleged offences have made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.1225 of 2020, pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Prohibition and Excise Offences) at Nalgonda, against the petitioner-

accused No.5, are quashed.

10. As a result, the criminal petition is allowed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any, stands closed.

________________________ JUSTICE K.SURENDER Date: 16.04.2025 pld