1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2015

[Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.6449 of 2014)

MANIK TANEJA & ANR.

... Appellants

vs.

STATE OF KARNATKA & ANR. ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2.

This appeal by Special Leave arises out of the judgment

dated 24.04.2014 passed by the Karnataka High Court in Criminal

Petition No.252 of 2014, in and by which, the High Court, while

dismissing the petition, held that the petition is premature and the

same is filed even before the completion of the investigation.

3.

Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as

under:- The appellant No.1 and his wife Sakshi Jawa met with an

accident with an auto rickshaw on 13.06.2013 at about 10.30 in the

morning, while Sakshi Jawa was driving Maruti SX4

Digitally signed by

Vinod Kumar

Date: 2015.01.20

17:19:27 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

KA-03-MM-8646. One of the passengers, who was travelling by the

auto, namely Mrs. Laxmi Ganapati, sustained injuries and she was

duly admitted in the Santosh Hospital for treatment. Sakshi Jawa,

the appellant No.2, is said to have paid all the hospital expenses of

the injured and the matter is said to have been amicably settled

between the injured and the appellants and no FIR was lodged. The

Constable, who was present at the time of incident, directed the

appellants to meet Mr. Kasim, Police Inspector, Pulakeshi Nagar

Traffic Police Station, Bangalore City. The appellants allege that as

soon as they entered the office of Mr. Kasim, he behaved in a rude

manner. Further, Mr. Kasim summoned the appellant No.2 to

produce her driving licence and other documents. As at that time

no FIR was lodged, the appellant No. 2 questioned the Police

Inspector as to why she was being asked to produce those

documents. Mr. Kasim, in reply, is alleged to have threatened

appellant No.2 by saying that he would drag her to court if she

continued to argue and she was also thrown out of his office. On

the orders of Mr. Kasim, his deputy told the appellants that they

are booking them on the charge of rash and negligent driving.

4. Being aggrieved with the manner with which they were

treated, the appellants posted comments on the Bangalore Traffic

Police Facebook page, accusing Mr. Kasim of his misbehaviour and

3

also forwarded an email complaining about the harassment meted

out to them at the hands of the Respondent Police Inspector. The

Respondent No.2-Police Inspector filed a complaint regarding the

posting of the comment on the Facebook by the appellants and

subsequently FIR was registered against the appellants for offences

punishable under Sections 353 and 506 IPC on 14.06.2013.

5.

The appellants filed Criminal Petition No. 252 of 2014

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court seeking to quash

the FIR and the criminal proceedings initiated against them on the

ground that the complaint is an afterthought. The High court vide

its Order dated 24.04.2014 dismissed the petition stating that the

petition was filed at a premature stage. The appellants by this

special leave are seeking to assail the correctness of the above

Order.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that posting

of a comment on the Facebook page of the traffic police does not

amount to an offence under Sections 353 and 506 IPC and the FIR

was not sustainable in law. It was submitted that Facebook page of

the Bengaluru traffic police itself is a public forum meant for

citizens to discuss and post their grievances and therefore, the

comment of the appellants posted on the Facebook would not prima

facie constitute the offence and the High Court erred in not

4

appreciating the matter in proper perspective.

7. Per Contra, learned counsel for the Respondents contended

that