AP High Court Quashes Wantonly Provoking Rioting Charge Against 2 Over Social Media Post Alleging Ex-MLA's Son Was Arrested In Drugs Case

The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the offence of 'wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot', lodged against two persons in connection with circulation of an allegedly false social media post in 2021 claiming that the son of a former MLA had been arrested in a drug case.

The Court held that the offence under Section 153(Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot) IPC, was not attracted as there was no specific allegation against the petitioners that because of the "circulation of false propaganda there occurred rioting".

Section 153 penalises wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause rioting and requires allegations showing an illegal act likely to provoke or result in rioting.

Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed that the essential ingredients of Section 153 IPC were not made out from the allegations in the complaint.

Referring to the distinction between Sections 153A and 505(2) IPC drawn by the Supreme Court in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 7 SCC 431 the Court noted that offences of this nature require promotion of enmity or hatred between groups and that Section 153 IPC specifically contemplates provocation leading to rioting. The Court observed:

Time and again, this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court consistently holds that an offence under Section 153/153A IPC requires proving mens rea (guilty intention) to provoke violence or create public disorder. It mandates that speech must be evaluated for promoting enmity or hatred, emphasizing that mere criticism of the government is not a crime. Further, the accused, who has not done anything directly against a specific community, or was not part of a group/rally raising such animosity, they cannot be held guilty merely by association or on suspicion under Section 153A of IPC.

A perusal of the contents of the report goes to show that there is no specific accusation as against the petitioners/A1 and A2 that because of the circulation of false propaganda, there occurred rioting. Prima facie in the absence of any such words that has been promoted, this Court without there being any hesitation comes to a conclusion that an offence under Section 153 of IPC would not attract as against the petitioners/A1 and A2.”

The Criminal Petition sought quashing of proceedings for offences under Sections 153, 120B(criminal conspiracy) and 505(2) (Statements conducing to Public Mischief) IPC and Section 66(Computer related offences) Information Technology Act.

According to the petitioners, Section 153 IPC was not attracted as the allegations neither involved rioting nor any provocation likely to cause rioting.

The prosecution alleged that a false social media post was circulated on 25.09.2021 claiming that the son of three time MLA of Jaggaiahpet Samineni Udaya Bhanu, had been arrested in a drug case while transporting 60 kilograms of ganja.

According to the complaint, the post was part of a conspiracy involving the petitioners and others to tarnish the reputation of the complainant and his father.

While conceding that Section 153 IPC may not be attracted, the State argued that proceedings under Section 505(2) IPC should nevertheless continue, contending that the alleged false propaganda was intended to promote enmity between rival groups and required investigation into the specific accusations against the petitioners.

Examining the rival contentions in light of the stage of investigation, the High Court held that whether the petitioners had circulated the alleged fake news was a disputed question of fact requiring investigation, reiterating that an FIR is merely the foundation of investigation and not substantive evidence.

On that basis, it declined to quash proceedings relating to conspiracy, public mischief and IT Act offences.

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Criminal Petition, quashing proceedings against the petitioners insofar as the offence under Section 153 IPC was concerned, while declining to interfere with the proceedings under Sections 120B, 505(2) IPC and Section 66 IT Act.

Case Title: Lagadapati Praveen Kumar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.

Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 5522 of 2021

Counsel for Petitioners: Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor

Click Here To Read/Download Order