Telangana High Court
Mohammad Minhazuddin vs The State Of Telangana on 16 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1581 OF 2021
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, seeking quashment of
proceedings in CC No.1225 of 2020, pending on the file of
the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Prohibition
and Excise Offences) at Nalgonda, against the petitioner-
accused No.5.
2. Heard Mr.Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-
State and perused the record.
3. The Sub-Inspector of Police-K.Ravi Kumar-respondent
No.2 lodged a complaint stating that accused No.1 posted
two photographs of a person and the severed head of a
human. The photos were posted on Facebook with the tag
"SHER A TIPU". According to the complaint, the
photographs belongs to a person named Mosin, who is an
accused in a murder case, and the head portion is that of
one Ramesh.
4. According to the complainant, the said photos were
viewed by several people, and this petitioner had liked the
posts. In the said circumstances, the petitioner was added
as an accused, along with others, for the offences under
Sections 153-A, 295-A, 504, 505 and 506 read with Section
109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7(1) of Criminal
Law (Amendment) Act, 1932.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the 'like' on the Facebook account by the
petitioner will not amount to any of the offences as alleged
by the prosecution. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla
Shyamsundar and another, wherein was stated as
follows:
"...13. Before parting with the case, we would like to
sound a word of caution that the Magistrates who have
been conferred with the power of taking cognizance and
issuing summons are required to carefully scrutinize
whether the allegations made in the complaint
proceeding meet the basic ingredients of the offence;
whether the concept of territorial jurisdiction is satisfied;
and further whether the accused is really required to be
summoned. This has to be treated as the primary
judicial responsibility of the court issuing process".
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner had liked a post
on Facebook, which depicted a person who had committed
the murder of another.
7. To attract an offence under Section 295-A of IPC, there
should be a deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage
the religious feelings of any class of citizens by insulting
their religion or religious beliefs. Merely liking a post would
not amount to any of the acts punishable under Section
295-A of IPC. Further, there is no threat made by the
petitioner to infer the offence under Sections 504, 505 and
506 read with Section 109 of IPC.
8. To attract an offence under Section 153-A of IPC, the
person should have promoted enmity between different
groups, specifically on the grounds of religion, race, place of
birth, residence, language, caste, or any other factor. It also
penalizes actions that are prejudicial to the maintenance of
harmony.
9. No such acts are attributed in this petition. The only
allegation, as already discussed, is that the petitioner liked
the comment which was posted by accused No.1. None of
the ingredients on the alleged offences have made out
against the petitioner. Accordingly, the proceedings against
the petitioner in CC No.1225 of 2020, pending on the file of
the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Prohibition
and Excise Offences) at Nalgonda, against the petitioner-
accused No.5, are quashed.
10. As a result, the criminal petition is allowed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any, stands
closed.
________________________
JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Date: 16.04.2025
pld
