Posting objectionable or provocative messages on social media platforms like WhatsApp can prima facie attract offences related to promoting enmity and insulting others to provoke breach of peace, as users hold a responsibility for the content shared with their contacts.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in CC No.349 OF 2024 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet, registered for the offences under Sections 504, 505(2), and 153-A (a) (b) IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant is the leader in Rythu Samanvaya Committee and an active member in TRS Party. Accused No.1 is the admin of Marikal WhatsApp group, added an unknown phone number in the group and hatched a plan along with accused No.2 to damage the political career of the de facto complainant. As a part of their plan, on 04.08.2022 at about 5.00 hours, the accused No.2 shared a message with phone No.9550632115 in Marikal WhatsApp group dishonouring the freedom of LW.1 and that on 30.08.2022, a message provoking Muslims against the de facto complainant was forwarded in the group by phone No.95050632115. On 03.09.2022 a message on TRS leaders stating that they are land grabbers and gamblers was forwarded through phone No.9985225254, which belongs to accused No.1. Based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, the police filed charge sheet vide CC No.349 of 2024 against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences 504, 505 (ii), and 153-A (a) (b) IPC.

Heard Sri M. Vijaykumar Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-State and Sri Bajarang Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 has submitted that the allegations in the complaint are to the effect that the messages are alleged to have been sent through Mobile No.9550632115 and that it is only an open representation to the MLA and there is nothing concerned to the de facto complainant. None of the messages, which are alleged to have been sent through the said mobile number, point out any defamatory statements as against the de facto complainant. The allegations in the complaint are false in nature as the messages do not promote any disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between any of the groups much less the religious groups or political groups. Therefore, there is no substance in the allegations and that it is only by using the freedom of expression, such messages are being sent in the interest of public at large. He further submitted that the ingredients of Section 504 IPC do not get attracted in the present case and it has not resulted in any breach of peace as alleged by the de facto complainant. The offence under Section 153(A) IPC is not at all applicable to the case on hand as the allegations or the WhatsApp messages referred to by the de facto complainant do not point out any such offences against the petitioner. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2-de facto complainant submits that the petitioner has been sending WhatsApp messages damaging the reputation of the de facto complainant in the society. The said WhatsApp messages are being posted in the Marikal WhatsApp group. The de facto complainant is the leader of Farmers Coordinating Committee since 30 years and has been working sincerely without remarks on his reputation and that because of the said WhatsApp messages, his reputation is being damaged and that one of the messages intends to result in a communal hatred and that it is aimed at provoking one of the communities in the society and further some other messages are posted affecting the reputation of the TRS party leaders. He further submitted that the copies of the messages if filed along with the complaint are examined in detail, they would point out the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. One of the messages disclose the name of the de facto complainant by saying that the de facto complainant, who is the husband of the Ex.Sarpanch of the village is alleged to have taken money to settl