Telangana High Court
Naveen Kumar Chinthapandu ... vs State Of Telangana And Another on 1 November, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
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
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
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
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.
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
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8611 of 2019
Date:01.11.2022.
kvs
