Telangana HC Refuses to Quash Case Against WhatsApp Group Admin Accused of Posting Messages to Provoke Communal Enmity
The Telangana High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings against a WhatsApp group admin charged under Sections 504, 505(2) and 153-A IPC for allegedly posting messages targeting a farmer leader and provoking communal discord.
The High Court for the State of Telangana, on 9 April 2026, refused to quash criminal proceedings against Lakakula Ayappa, the administrator of a WhatsApp group called “Marikal WhatsApp group,” who faces trial for offences under Sections 504, 505(2) and 153-A(a)(b) of the Indian Penal Code. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada, sitting singly, held that the allegations in the charge sheet prima facie disclosed the offences alleged and that the truth of those allegations could only be determined after a full-fledged trial. The court disposed of the petition by dispensing with the petitioner's personal attendance before the trial court, subject to conditions.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The de facto complainant is described in the charge sheet as the leader of the Rythu Samanvaya Committee (Farmers Coordinating Committee) for thirty years and an active member of the TRS party. The prosecution's case is that Lakakula Ayappa, as admin of the Marikal WhatsApp group, added an unknown phone number — 9550632115 — to the group and, together with accused No.2, hatched a plan to damage the political career of the de facto complainant.
Three specific incidents are set out in the charge sheet. On 4 August 2022, a message was shared through the added number that allegedly dishonoured the reputation of the de facto complainant. On 30 August 2022, a message was forwarded through the same number that allegedly provoked the Muslim community against the complainant. On 3 September 2022, a message was posted through phone number 9985225254, which belongs to accused No.1, alleging that TRS leaders were land grabbers and gamblers.
Based on the complaint, the police filed a charge sheet as CC No.349 of 2024 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet. Lakakula Ayappa then filed Criminal Petition No.8492 of 2023 before the High Court seeking to quash those proceedings.
Arguments on Each Side
Sri M. Vijaykumar Goud, appearing for the petitioner, argued that none of the messages sent through mobile number 9550632115 contained defamatory statements against the de facto complainant. The messages, he submitted, amounted to an open representation to the MLA and were an exercise of freedom of expression in the public interest. He contended that the ingredients of Section 504 IPC were not attracted because no breach of peace had resulted, and that Section 153-A IPC was wholly inapplicable because the messages did not promote disharmony between religious or political groups.
Sri Bajarang Singh Thakur, appearing for respondent No.2, the de facto complainant, countered that the WhatsApp messages were damaging the complainant's reputation in the society. He pointed to one message that named the de facto complainant — described as the husband of the former Sarpanch of the village — and alleged that he had taken money to settle land disputes, earned crores through real estate dealings, and used his influence over the Muslim community to settle disputes in the village. Counsel submitted that this message was designed to provoke the Muslim community against other communities, creating a threat of breach of peace. He further argued that messages targeting TRS leaders as land grabbers could provoke political groups and disturb social harmony. Sri D. Arun Kumar appeared for respondent No.1, the State.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Tirumala Devi Eada extracted the full text of Sections 504, 505(2) and 153-A(a)(b) IPC in the order. Section 504 punishes intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace. Section 505(2) targets statements that create or promote feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities. Section 153-A(a) and (b) penalise promoting disharmony or feelings of enmity between such groups by words, signs or visible representations, or committing acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony that disturb or are likely to disturb public tranquility.
The court noted that the charge sheet identified LWs.2 to 5 as eye witnesses and members of the WhatsApp group. On examining the copies of the alleged WhatsApp messages filed along with the petition, the court found that they prima facie pointed to a threat to public peace and harmony as perceived by the de facto complainant.
Justice Eada relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Kishor v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1515, which held that a WhatsApp status is a mode of communication with known persons, that people check such statuses frequently, and that a person cannot shed primary responsibility for objectionable content by pointing to its limited circulation. The Bombay court had found that the contents of the FIR before it prima facie disclosed a deliberate and malicious intention to insult the feelings of a group.
Applying that reasoning, Justice Eada held that the petitioner was not justified in posting objectionable messages in the WhatsApp group, which is a prominent social media platform. The allegations prima facie showed that the messages would harm the reputation and tarnish the image of the de facto complainant. Since the offences alleged were prima facie made out, the proceedings could not be quashed at this stage. The veracity of witnesses and the truth of the allegations, the court observed, could only be determined after a full-fledged trial.
Significance of the Prima Facie Standard
The court's reasoning turns on the well-established principle that at the quashing stage, the court does not weigh evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses. The question is whether the allegations in the charge sheet, taken at face value, disclose the ingredients of the offences charged. Here, the court found that the combination of messages — one allegedly targeting the complainant's personal reputation, one allegedly designed to provoke a specific religious community against him, and one targeting his political affiliation — was sufficient to satisfy that threshold across all three sections.
The reliance on Kishor v. State of Maharashtra extends the principle that the reach of a WhatsApp group, even if limited to known contacts, does not insulate a sender or group admin from criminal liability when the content is prima facie objectionable. The court treated the admin's role in adding the unknown number to the group as part of the alleged plan, making the petitioner's connection to the messages a factual question for trial rather than a ground for quashing.
Order
Criminal Petition No.8492 of 2023 was disposed of. The court declined to quash CC No.349 of 2024 pending before the Principal Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narayanpet. The attendance of the petitioner before the trial court was dispensed with, provided he is represented by counsel on every date of hearing and appears before the trial court whenever his presence is specifically required. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, were directed to stand closed.