This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings in Crime No.848 of 2020 on the file of Tadipatri Town Police Station, Anantapur District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 153 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ' IPC ').

It is the case of the petitioner that, on the basis of the complaint dated 25.12.2020 lodged by the defacto complainant/second respondent herein, the petitioner was falsely implicated in Crime No.848 of 2020.

The brief facts of the case are that, the defacto complainant is a police constable bearing Number PC-1967 by name K. Peddanna. According to him, on 24.12.2020 he received information regarding telephonic conversation which allegedly took place between one Vali - a resident of Tadipatri Town working in MY News, Youtube channel and one Kulasekhar Reddy - a sand bullock-cart transporter. The verbatim of the conversation which was recorded by Vali states as follows:

It is alleged that, Vali and Somasekhar Naidu who belong to the group of Ex.MLA Prabhakar Reddy, conspired together and uploaded the said verbatim in social media with a view to provoke MSM,J CrlP.No.6278 of 2020 2 two groups in Tadipatri Town. After coming to know about the matter, the defacto complainant reported the same to police station and a case in Crime No.848 of 2020 was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 153-A r/w 34 I.P.C and issued First Information Report.

The main contention of the petitioner in the present petition is that, the police are acting as hand in glove with the political party in power; false and frivolous case is registered against this petitioner and on the face of the complaint no case is made out to constitute an offence punishable under Section 153-A I.P.C, as alleged by the police. It is contended that, the entire contents of the First Information Report, even if accepted in toto, they does not make out any offence punishable under Section 153-A I.P.C. The alleged private conversation between the two individuals took place with regard to transportation of sand by bullock-cart, wherein a reference of wife of Sri Pedda Reddy is taken to the extent that she was demanding Rs.10,00/- for transportation of sand on bullock cart. It is contended that, there is no reference to any hate speech or any intention of maligning any political leader, even if the entire conversation is accepted in toto and as such no offence under Section 153-A I.P.C is made out. It is also contended that, in Ramesh v. Union of India1 the Apex Court observed that, "the effect of the words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong- minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view." Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bilaal Ahmed Kaloo v. State 1 AIR 1988 SC 775 MSM,J CrlP.No.6278 of 2020 3 of Andhra Pradesh2 to contend that, the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 153-A r/w 34 I.P.C and requested to quash the proceedings in Crime No.848 of 2020 on the file of Tadipatri Town Police Station, Anantapur District.

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition, whereas, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that, at this stage, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed, since he is the person who uploaded recorded conversation in the youtube along with Vali. As such, the petitioner and Vali are liable to be prosecuted for the offence. Therefore, there is absolutely no ground to quash the proceedings at this stage and requested to dismiss the criminal petition.

Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is"

In ( Mrs.) Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and others4, the Supreme Court dealt with the scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C and it reads as under:

In view of the judgments referred supra, this Court cannot appreciate the evidence at this stage while deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At best, this Court can evaluate the evidence, but it is not competent to record a finding that the facts on hand, as they did not constitute an offence under given circumstance.

Keeping the law declared by the Apex Court in the various judgments referred supra, I would like to examine the present case as to whether the allegations made in the complaint along with the conversation between the two persons Vali and Kulasekhar Reddy, if accepted on its face value constitutes an offence. The complaint lodged by the police constable/second respondent/defacto complaint runs as follows:

The basis for lodging the report is the exact verbatim of the telephonic conversation with regard to bullock cart sand and it reads as follows:

To constitute an offence, there should be the words either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. But, here, in this case, the allegation in the complaint would show that one Vali and Somasekhar Naidu, supporter of Ex.MLA Prabhakara MSM,J CrlP.No.6278 of 2020 10 Reddy who uploaded the said verbatim to social media. But, the complaint is silent as to who are the persons of the other group of the town being provoked due to the postings of the content in the social media, except making an allegation that the content of the postings provoked the other group to create disharmony in the town. In the absence of disclosure of the details of the other group, question of constituting an offence under Section 153-A I.P.C does not arise.

Any act which promotes enmity between the groups on grounds of religion and race etc. or which are prejudicial to national integration is punishable. The purpose of enactment of such a provision was to "check fissiparous communal and separatist tendencies and secure fraternity so as to ensure the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation" (vide Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India and others5).

The essence of the offence under Section 153-A of IPC is promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. To ascertain whether an offence as defined under Section 153-A IPC has been committed or not, it is for the court to examine the words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations and come to a conclusion whether they have a tendency to promote or attempts to promote on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other group etc. disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities . In the 5 AIR 2014 SC 1591 MSM,J CrlP.No.6278 of 2020 11 absence of any material as to the actual words uttered by the accused or the acts committed by the accused, the allegations must be held to be extremely vague. (vide Mohd. Khalid Hussain v. State through SHO P.S. Asifnagar6) If the principle laid down in Mohd. Khalid Hussain v. State through SHO P.S. Asifnagar (referred supra) is applied to the present facts of the case, the contents of the complaint regarding identify of the other group of Tadipatri Town is too vague. In such case, mere posting of contents in social media do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 153-A I.P.C. Even on close examination of the contents of the conversation allegedly posted in youtube do not constitute any offence punishable under Section 153-A r/w 34 I.P.C , for the reason that this was a conversation between Basha and owner of the bullock cart regarding alleged payment of Rs.10,000/- to the wife of Mr. Pedda Reddy for transporting one cart of sand. But, they are not arrayed as accused. However, Vali, Kulasekhara Reddy and Parimi Somasekhar Naidu (the petitioner herein) were alone arrayed as accused, since they allegedly posting the material in youtube channel.

Similar issue came up before the Apex Court in Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra7 wherein, the Apex Court held as follows:

In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh8 , the Apex Court observed as under:

Following the principles laid down in the above judgments, the Karnataka High Court in Mohammed Shariff v. The State of Karnataka9 declined to quash the proceedings in the said case, as the allegations made in the compliant are reflective only to further evaluate the matter.

In Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab10 , the Apex Court held as follows:

From a reading of the principle laid down in the above judgment, mere raising slogans by two persons is not sufficient to constitute an offence and there must be some overt acts to bring home the charge. If, the same principle is applied to the present facts of the case, there was not overt act, except uploading the verbatim conversation in the youtube social media platform.

In Khushboo v. Kanniammal and another11, a similar issue came up for consideration with regard to commission of offence punishable under Section 153-A I.P.C along with the other offences, wherein, the Apex Court observed as under:

(Emphasis supplied) In the present case also, the content of social media posting is not against any group, but it is the discussion between two individuals i.e Basha and cart owner. Even if such conversation is posted in the youtube social media platform, it may at best defame the wife of Mr. Peddareddy, the sitting MLA of Tadipatri Constituency. But, that would not promote hatredness or ill-feeling between two groups. In fact, there is nothing in the complaint to show that there is another group in Tadipatri Town, except making a vague allegation that the content may permit hatredness between two groups in the town. Therefore, the vague allegation in the complaint is not sufficient to constitute an offence punishable under Section 153-A I.P.C.

In view of the principles lad down in the above judgments, in the absence of any material, that the two groups in Tadipatri Town are promoting enmity between each other on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony and also that, a vague MSM,J CrlP.No.6278 of 2020 15 allegation is not sufficient to constitute an offence, since registration of crime, investigation and consequences of investigation will have serious impact on the esteem of a person. If, the investigating agency took the petitioner into custody based on such vague allegations, it would substantially damage the reputation of that person i.e. the petitioner herein. In such case, it is difficult to accept the contention of the prosecution that the act of the respondents would constitute an offence punishable under Section 153-A r/w 34 I.P.C , prima facie.

Meghalaya High Court in Smt. Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya12 had an occasion to deal with similar situation, where the accused allegedly posted an incident that occurred at basketball court. In the said post there is a distinct portrayal of an alleged skirmish between two groups, one, group allegedly consisting of tribal youths and the other group consisting of non- tribal youths. While deciding the same, Meghalaya High Court placed reliance on judgment of Apex Court in Babu Rao v. State13 concluded that, the said facebook post sought to create a divide to a cordial relationship between tribal and non-tribal living in the State of Meghalaya, even alluding to the rule of the State machinery as being biased in this regard. Prima facie it appears that the case under Section 156 Cr.P.C is made out.

As discussed above in the earlier paragraphs regarding scope of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, this Court can quash the proceedings at any stage of the proceedings, but, subject to certain limitations.

Unreported Crl.P.No.9 of dated 10.11.2020 (2020 SCC Online Megh 167) 13 1980 (2) SCC 402 MSM,J CrlP.No.6278 of 2020 16 The power of this Court to quash at the stage of F.I.R. is limited and this Court can verify the F.I.R. and other material, if any, produced before the Court and decide whether such allegations would constitute any offence, but this Court cannot appreciate the evidence and cannot record whether the allegations would constitute any specific offence or not.

Undisputedly, investigation in the present case is at the fetus stage, in such case, it is difficult to quash the proceedings as held in " State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo14 ", wherein the Apex Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not be exercised by the High Court to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court, being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it was a trial court. Even when charge is framed at that stage, the Court has to only prima facie be satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. For that limited purpose, the 14 (2005) 13 SCC 540 MSM,J CrlP.No.6278 of 2020 17 Court can evaluate material and documents on record but it cannot appreciate evidence. The Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.

In " Kurukshetra University v. State Of Haryana15 ", the Supreme Court took a serious view about quashing the proceedings by the High Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C and observed as follows:

In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in "State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo" and "Kurukshetra University v. State Of Haryana" (referred supra) when the investigation is at fetus stage, this Court cannot interfere with the process of investigation and quash the proceedings by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

In a recent judgment "Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4931 of 2020", the Apex Court relied on the decision of the Privy Council in " King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed16 ", held that the law is well settled that Courts would not 15 AIR 1977 SC 2229 16 AIR 1945 PC 18 MSM,J CrlP.No.6278 of 2020 18 thwart any investigation. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on.

In " S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat17 ", the Apex Court cautioned that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat (referred supra), the Apex Court held that if a perusal of the first information report leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere.

Applying the above principles to the present facts of the case, this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings at this stage, more particularly when the investigation is not yet commenced and facts are incomplete and hazy. Thus, the Apex Court in all the above judgments summed up the principle and held that when the investigation is at fetus stage, the Court cannot quash the proceedings.

Turning to the facts of the present case, except registration of crime, investigation is not yet commenced and there is a reference that the petitioner belongs to the group of Ex.MLA Mr. Prabhakar Reddy of Tadipatri Town and their acts provokes the other group in the town and promotes hatredness between the 17 (2001) 7 SCC 659 MSM,J CrlP.No.6278 of 2020 19 two groups, as such, there is a vague reference about existence of two groups in Tadipatri Town.

First Information Report is only information about commission of a cognizable offence to the police and it need not contain minute details. Therefore, when the complaint discloses commission of a cognizable offence punishable under Section 153-A r/w 34 I.P.C , taking into consideration of the allegations in the complaint on its face value, prima facie, it constitutes an offence and the truth or otherwise about the existence of the other group in the town has to be decided only after conclusion after investigation. But, existence of two groups is clear from the complaint lodged by the second respondent. Hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion, whether the allegations made in the complaint constitutes an offence punishable under Section 153-A r/w 34 I.P.C , I find that it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings at this stage, since investigation is not yet commenced.

In the result, criminal petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed. No costs.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:18.01.2021 SP