Andhra Pradesh HC Quashes Section 153 IPC Charge in Fake Ganja-Arrest Social Media Post Case, Lets Conspiracy and IT Act Charges Stand

The Andhra Pradesh High Court partially quashed FIR No. 354 of 2021, dropping the Section 153 IPC charge but preserving conspiracy, public mischief, and IT Act proceedings against two accused.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has partly allowed a petition seeking to quash a criminal case arising from a social media post that falsely claimed a politician's son had been arrested for transporting 60 kilograms of ganja. Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy, sitting singly, found that the charge under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code — wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot — could not be sustained because no rioting had occurred or was alleged as a consequence of the post. The charges under Section 120B and Section 505(2) of the IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, however, were left intact for investigation, the court holding that whether the accused actually circulated the post is a disputed question of fact that must be resolved through the investigative process.

The Social Media Post and the FIR

The second respondent, Samineni Venkata Krishna Prasad, is a businessman based in Jaggaiahpet and Hyderabad. His father, Samineni Udaya Bhanu, had been elected as Member of the Legislative Assembly from Jaggaiahpet three times and was serving as Government Whip for the second time.

On 25 September 2021, a post circulated on social media carrying the caption “YCP Leader Samineni Udaya Bhanu's son arrest in drugs case.” The post alleged that the complainant had been caught red-handed while transporting 60 kilograms of ganja illegally. The complainant stated that the post spread widely, damaging the reputation of both himself and his father. On inquiry, he identified the two petitioners — Lagadapati Praveen Kumar and Pavuluri Vamsi Krishna, residents of Krishna District — along with others as the conspirators behind the circulation.

A handwritten complaint was filed before 26 September 2021, and Jaggaiahpet Police Station, Krishna District, registered Crime No. 354 of 2021 for offences under Sections 153, 120B, and 505(2) of the IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000. The two petitioners, arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 and 2, approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking to quash the entire FIR.

The Legal Dispute: Which Charges Could Survive?

Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao, pressed three distinct arguments. On Section 153 IPC, he contended that the provision requires an illegal act that provokes rioting, and since no rioting had taken place, the essential ingredient was absent. On Section 505(2) IPC, he argued that the post did not create or promote feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different religious, racial, or caste groups — the provision's specific requirement. On Section 66 of the IT Act, he submitted that no offence was made out at all.

The Special Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State conceded the Section 153 point but resisted quashing of the Section 505(2) charge. The prosecution's position was that Section 505(2) covers the promotion of enmity between “classes or communities” broadly, and that the petitioners and the complainant belonged to two different groups. The specific accusation in the FIR that the petitioners created and promoted false propaganda against the complainant and his family was, in the State's submission, sufficient to keep that charge alive.

How the Court Reasoned on Section 153 IPC

Justice Sreenivasa Reddy set out the essential ingredients of Section 153 IPC: there must be an illegal act done maliciously or wantonly, providing provocation to any person, with the intent or knowledge that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting. The court noted that a perusal of the FIR material showed no specific accusation that the circulation of the false post had resulted in, or was intended to result in, rioting. The State itself conceded this position.

The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported at (1997) 7 SCC 431, which drew a distinction between Section 153A and Section 505(2) of the IPC. The Apex Court had held that the common ingredient in both offences is promoting feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different religious, racial, linguistic, or regional groups or castes or communities. Under Section 153A, the promotion must be through words, signs, or visible representations. Under Section 505(2), it must be through making, publishing, or circulating a statement or report containing rumour or alarming news.

Drawing on this, the court observed that an offence under Section 153 or Section 153A IPC requires proving mens rea to provoke violence or create public disorder, and that mere criticism of the government is not a crime. A person who has not acted directly against a specific community and was not part of a group raising such animosity cannot be held guilty merely by association or suspicion. Since the FIR contained no allegation that rioting occurred as a consequence of the post, the Section 153 charge could not be sustained.

Why Section 505(2) IPC and Section 66 IT Act Were Preserved

The court read Section 505(2) IPC carefully. The provision punishes whoever makes, publishes, or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, community, or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups. The court noted that this provision is broadly analogous to Section 153A but extends to “any other ground whatsoever,” making its reach wider.

In the present case, the post alleged that the complainant had been arrested for transporting 60 kilograms of ganja and had been grilled by police, damaging his honour. The court found that the post was alleged to have been circulated widely with a view to promote enmity between two groups. Whether the petitioners actually circulated it was a disputed question of fact. The court held that when a specific accusation is made in an FIR, the Investigating Officer must conduct investigation from that angle and determine whether the offence is made out. At the stage of a quashing petition, the court declined to interfere with the Section 120B, Section 505(2), and Section 66 IT Act proceedings.

The court also reiterated the settled position on FIRs: an FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and is not a detailed chronicle of every intricate detail of an offence. It is the foundation of investigation, not a substitute for formal evidence. The Investigating Officer must proceed on the basis of the FIR's accusations and gather material to determine whether the offences are made out.

Order

Criminal Petition No. 5522 of 2021 was allowed in part. The proceedings in Crime No. 354 of 2021 of Jaggaiahpet Police Station, Krishna District, were quashed as against the petitioners — Accused Nos. 1 and 2 — only to the extent of the offence under Section 153 of the IPC.

The prayer to quash the proceedings for offences under Section 120B and Section 505(2) of the IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000 was dismissed. The investigation into those charges will continue. Any miscellaneous petitions pending in the criminal petition were directed to stand closed.