Posting Objectionable Messages On WhatsApp Group Against Local Leader May Threaten Public Peace: Telangana HC Refuses To Quash Case

The Telangana High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of posting objectionable messages in a WhatsApp group against a local political leader and TRS leaders, holding that the allegations prima facie disclosed offences under Sections 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes) and 153-A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence. language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) of the IPC.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tirumala Devi Eada observed:“In the present case also the petitioner has shared a message on the WhatsApp group, which is a prominent social media and thus, the petitioner is not justified in posting objectionable messages in the WhatsApp group. The allegations point out that the said message would harm the reputation and tarnish the image of the de facto complainant. Since the allegations prima facie point out the offences alleged against the petitioner, the proceedings cannot be quashed. The veracity of the witnesses and the truth or otherwise in the allegations can be culled out after a full-fledged trial.”The Court was dealing with a criminal petition filed by the accused seeking quashing of proceedings pending against them.As per the prosecution case, the de facto complainant was a leader in the Rythu Samanvaya Committee and an active member of the TRS party. It was alleged that the petitioner, who was the admin of the “Marikal” WhatsApp group, added an unknown phone number to the group and, along with another accused, hatched a plan to damage the political career of the de facto complainant.The prosecution alleged that certain messages were posted in the WhatsApp group dishonouring the reputation of the de facto complainant, provoking the Muslim community against him, and describing TRS leaders as “land grabbers and gamblers.”The petitioner contended that the allegations were false and that the messages did not promote disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill-will between any religious or political groups. It was argued that the messages were merely an exercise of freedom of expression and were made in public interest. The petitioner further submitted that the ingredients of Section 504 IPC were not attracted, as there was no breach of peace, and that Section 153-A IPC had no application to the facts.Opposing the plea, the de facto complainant argued that the petitioner had been sending WhatsApp messages damaging his reputation in society. It was submitted that one of the messages was aimed at provoking a community against him, while other messages targeted TRS leaders by alleging that they were involved in land grabbing and making money. Such messages, it was argued, could provoke communal and political groups and disturb harmony in society.The Court noted that copies of the alleged WhatsApp messages were placed on record and, prima facie, pointed to a “threat of public peace and harmony” as perceived by the de facto complainant.Referring to the Bombay High Court's decision in Kishor v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that social media communication carries responsibility. The cited decision had observed that WhatsApp is a “mode of communication with known persons” and that “one should behave with sense of responsibility while communicating something to others.”Applying the said principle, the Court held that the petitioner could not be permitted to avoid prosecution at the threshold merely by disputing the contents and effect of the messages. Since the allegations prima facie disclosed the alleged offences, the truth or otherwise of the allegations would have to be examined in a full-fledged trial.Accordingly, the Court declined to quash the proceedings. However, it dispensed with the petitioner's personal attendance before the trial court, subject to the condition that he shall be represented by counsel on every date of hearing and shall appear whenever his presence is required.Case Title: Lakakula Ayappa v. State of Telangana & Anr.Case No.: Criminal Petition No.8492 of 2023Bench: Justice Tirumala Devi EadaAppearance: Sri M. Vijaykumar Goud for the Petitioner; Sri D. Arun Kumar for the Respondent No.1-State; Sri Bajarang Singh Thakur for Respondent No.2.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Posting Objectionable Messages On WhatsApp Group Against Local Leader May Threaten Public Peace: Telangana HC Refuses To Quash Case

Ananya Tangri

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ananya Tangri

Posting Objectionable Messages On WhatsApp Group Against Local Leader May Threaten Public Peace: Telangana HC Refuses To Quash Case

Ananya Tangri

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ananya Tangri

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers