HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.8611 OF 2019
Between:
Naveen Kumar Chinthapandu
@ Theenmar Mallanna. ...Petitioner
And
State of Telangana, rep. by
Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Hyderabad and another. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 01.11.2022
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No
see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their
Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 8611 of 2019
% Dated 01.11.2022
# Naveen Kumar Chinthapandu
@ Theenmar Mallanna.. ... Petitioner
And
$ State of Telangana, rep. by
Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Hyderabad and another ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt.B.Rachana Reddy.
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan,
Additional Public Prosecutor for
R1
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
jHON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8611 of 2019
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings in CC No.37 of 2019 pending on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narayankhed.
2. The petitioner is charge-sheeted for the offences under Section 504 and 171G of IPC by Narayankhed Police Station. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.10.2018, the defacto complainant/2nd respondent filed a complaint with the Police stating that on 22.10.2018 around 8.15 p.m, Mr.Bhupal Redy, Ex-MLA contesting candidate from TRS party while campaigning in the Pipri village, some of the villagers obstructed the campaigning and abused TRS party. The TRS party workers also abused villagers but the Ex-MLA Bhupal Reddy did not abuse any one. However, during the broad cast of the program of which the petitioner is an Anchor, allegedly abused the Ex MLA as "dunnapothu" (bull) and "vaadu manishu kadu" (he is not a human) and other language referring to the incident. The said programme was also posted on many WhatsApp groups.
3. The police sought permission from the concerned Magistrate to investigate since both the offences alleged are non cognizable offences. The learned Magistrate accorded sanction under Section 155(2) of 4 Cr.P.C on 25.10.2018 and directed the police to investigate. The police, having investigated the case, filed charge sheet against the petitioner stating that while campaigning at Pipri village, there was an altercation which ensued in between the TRS Party workers and the villagers. The Ex-MLA Bhupal Reddy did not abuse any of the villagers. However, one of the party members namely Ravinder Nayak, who accompanied Mr.Bhupal Reddy abused the public as 'Orey Lanja Koduka, Orey' ('Hey you bastard') in the loud speaker. Since there was no abuse that was hurled by Mr.Bhupal Reddy, the petitioner/accused who was the anchor intentionally abused Mr.Bhupal Reddy, TRS candidate by using the above language as 'dunnapothu' (bull) - in colloquial language it means that the person is insensitive. Also said "vaadu manishu kadu" (he is not a human) in colloquial language it means that a person is inhuman. For the said reason, charge sheet was filed.
4. Section 171G of IPC reads as follows:
[171G. False statement in connection with an election.--Whoever with intent to affect the result of an election makes or publishes any statement purporting to be a statement of fact which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate shall be punished with fine.]
5. To attract an offence under Section 171-G of IPC, basic ingredients are ; i) With an intention to affect the result of an election, making or publishing any statement; ii) Such statement is purportedly 5 a fact but having knowledge that it is false, iii) the said statement is made in relation to personal character or conduct of any candidate;
6. Uttering of the words by the petitioner as an anchor while analysing a conflict between the TRS party members and villagers cannot be said that with an intention to affect the result of an election any statement was made. It was abusive language, according to the complainant and no personal remarks were made about the character of Mr.Bhupal Reddy, Ex-MLA.
7. Section 504 of IPC reads as follows:
"504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.--Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
8. To attract an offence under Section 504 of IPC; i) a person should have intentionally insulted another person; ii) for provoking such person; iii) having knowledge that such provocation will cause such person to break public peace, or to commit any other offence.
9. Abusive language used, even according to the police was during the course of a programme while the petitioner was anchoring the said programme. The said abusive language, even according to the charge sheet did not provoke Mr.Bhupal Reddy and consequently, there are 6 no acts committed by the said Mr.Bhupal Reddy consequent to such provocation to break the public peace.
10. According to the charge sheet, one of the persons accompanying the said candidate Mr.Bhupal Reddy has abused the public in the loud speaker saying 'Orey Lanja Koduka, Orey'( meaning -'Hey you bastard-Translated by me). However, while analysing the said incident, the petitioner allegedly abused Mr.Bhupal Reddy as 'dunnapothu' (bull) and 'vaadu manishi kadu' (he is not a human) while reacting to the said abuses hurled against villagers.
11. Mr.Bhupal Reddy, Ex-MLA who is allegedly the victim is not cited as a witness in the charge sheet and statement is also not recorded by the police. The defacto complainant who is a party member does not mention that she was present when the incident in the village during campaigning took place. However, only on the basis of her viewing the programme, present complaint was lodged. Further on questioning the Public prosecutor has no information whether a case was registered against the person who abused the villagers as 'bastards'.
12. Though the offences under Sections 504 and 171G of IPC are not attracted, the language used by the petitioner may be called as abusive and defamatory. For the said reason, it is open for the aggrieved to take steps for filing a case of defamation if so advised. 7
13. For the aforementioned reasons, the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in CC No.37 of 2019 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narayankhed are hereby quashed.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 01.11.2022 Note: LR copy to be marked B/o.kvs 8 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.8611 of 2019 Date:01.11.2022.
kvs 9 10