P. Naveen Kumar Reddy vs The State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 3060 AP

        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

                   MAIN CASE No.: Crl.P. No. 4619 of 2021

                               PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                              Office
       DATE                                ORDER
No                                                                               Note

1.    16.08.2021 CMR, J

                                  Crl.P. No. 4619 of 2021

                       Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken
                notice for 1st respondent/State and Sri V.R.N.Prasanth,

learned Standing Counsel for TTD has taken notice for 2nd respondent and both request time to seek instructions.

Post after four (04) weeks.

________ CMR, J I.A.No.1 of 2021

The petitioner is accused in Crime No.100 of 2021 of Tirumala II Town Police Station. The said crime was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 505 (1) (b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C").

The main allegation against the petitioner is that on 02-07-2021, the petitioner herein has posted a false news in social media through his personal Facebook account and Whatsapp stating that specified authority was appointed by the Government against the procedure and norms and the Government has taken a hasty decision by handing over the Laddu counters to K.V.M. Infocomm by incurring huge expenditure of Rs.5 crores per month and it has taken a decision to cancel the Sarvadarshanam to the pilgrims and it is inviting VIPs and providing darshan to them and earned money by selling Srivari tickets etc., and the said information posted in the social media by the petitioner, is false and baseless.

Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 505(1)(b) of I.P.C.

The petitioner now challenges the legal validity of launching the said criminal prosecution against him on the ground that Section 505 (1) (b) of I.P.C. envisages that when a person publishes any statement, rumour or report with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility, then only the said offence is constituted and as there is no such intention on the part of the petitioner to induce any person to commit an offence against the State or public tranquility, that the present prosecution against him is not maintainable under Section 505 (1) (b) of I.P.C.

In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and another AND Vinod Hansraj Goyal v. State of Maharashtra1, whereunder it is stated that promotion of enmity or hatred between different groups on grounds of religion, etc. is essential to constitute an offence punishable under Section 505 (2) of I.P.C. However, the said judgment pertains to the offence punishable under Section 505 (2) of I.P.C. But the present case is not under Section 505 (2) of I.P.C. It is under Section 505 (1) (b) of I.P.C. Even then also, considering the ingredients of the offence, as discussed supra, under Section 505 (1) (b) of I.P.C., there must be an intention on the part of the accused in publishing any such statement,

(2007) 5 SCC 1 rumour or report, to cause fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or public tranquility. Then only the said offence under Section 505(1)(b) of I.P.C. would be constituted.

As can be seen from the facts of the case and the allegations ascribed against the petitioner, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner had any such intention to cause fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or public tranquility.

Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner could make out a strong prima facie case, warranting interference of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to examine in the main criminal petition whether the said prosecution launched against the petitioner under Section 505 (1) (b) of I.P.C. is legally sustainable or not and whether the F.I.R. registered against him is liable to be quashed or not.

So, in view of the above, there shall be interim stay of investigation, till the next date of hearing.

________ CMR, J ARR