THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.504 of 2022

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.6 of 2022 of P.S. Karimnagar I Town, registered for the offences under Sections 153, 500, 505(2) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Mr. Avaneesh Naraparaju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner-accused No.1 is the BJP official spokesperson. While Sri Bandi Sanjay Kumar, Member of Parliament, Karimnagar and BJP State President was protesting against G.O.Ms.No.317 passed by the Government of Telangana and to enforce Presidential order on Zonal system for allocation of employees, he was arrested by the Police. The petitioner- accused No.1, being the official spokesperson has convened a press meet at BJP State Office, Nampally, Hyderabad, criticized the action of the Government for arresting their President and also commented indecent words against one V.Satyanarayana, who is the Commissioner of the Police, Karimnagar, to remove his shirt and wear pink shirt. The accused Nos.2 and 3 have posted the said content in their YouTube Channels, thereby, defaming the image of Sri V.Satyanarayana. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.6 of 2022 was registered against the petitioner-accused No.1 and others, for the aforesaid offences.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-accused No.1 is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that Section 199 of Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. For the offence under Section 505(2) of IPC, sanction under Section 196(1A) of Cr.P.C. is mandatory, however, in the present case, sanction was not obtained from the competent authority. He further submits that the act of the petitioner-accused No.1 is the opinion which he has right to express under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner-accused No.1 and the ingredients of offences alleged against him are not made out. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioner-

accused No.1 and all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. For better adjudication of the matter, Sections 500, 505(2) of IPC, 199(1) of Cr.P.C. and 196(1A) of Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder:

“

500. Punishment for defamation.—

Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

505(2)Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.— Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different reli-gious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 199(1). Prosecution for defamation.--

(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence:

Provided that where su