The Supreme Court in a recent case of Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., has held that for the application of Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) the presence of two or more groups or communities is necessary.
The issue in the present case arises when the complainant formed a trust, by the name Savara Foundation. He is the founder and also the Chairman of the Board of Trustees.
The complainant wanted a foundation stone laying ceremony of Matra Ashraya-A collection museum to be done by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttarakhand.
However, the appellant published a news article in the e-newspaper, wherein it was stated that the proposed to be laid was Government land which had been unlawfully occupied/encroached upon by the complainant. As per the complainant even the invitation was published in the defamatory way with the intent and knowledge that the same would irreparably tarnish the reputation of the complainant and his standing in the public domain. The complainant asserted that the sole objective of the publication was to incite breach of peace.
Lack of proper research and fact-finding exercise has resulted into this inappropriate information by which the accused has caused serious damage to the goodwill, reputation and standing of the complainant in the society. Hence, the complainant invoked Sections 153A, 500, 501, 504 read with Sections 34 and 120B IPC. When the appellant came to know about the same, he filed a Criminal Writ Petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand claiming to be completely innocent and taking a plea that the allegations made under Section 153A of the IPC did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence.
The High Court proceeded to dismiss the criminal writ petition filed by the appellant. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court which was later allowed. After hearing the rival contention of the parties, the Supreme court bench was of the believe that as per the language of Section 153A IPC, in order to constitute such offence, the prosecution must must prove that the words ‘spoken’ or ‘written’, created enmity or bad blood between different groups on the ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., or that the acts so alleged were prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.
Thereafter, upon careful perusal of the offending news article, the court found no reference to any group or groups of people. Rather the essence of the publication was found on imputing that the respondent had encroached upon public land where the foundation stone laying ceremony was proposed. Court could not find the words to have any connection whatsoever with a group or groups of people or communities. Hence, it held that the foundational facts essential to constitute the offence under Section 153A IPC are totally lacking from the allegations.
Court placed reliance on Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2007) 5 SCC 1, wherein it was held that for the application of Section 153A IPC, the presence of two or more groups or communities is essential, whereas in the present case, no such groups or communities were referred to in the news article.
As far as Section 504 IPC is concerned. Court further rejected the invocation of the same stating that the said offence can be invoked when the insult of a person provokes him to break public peace or to commit any other offence. There is no such allegation made by the complainant thatowing to the alleged offensive post he was provoked to such an extent that he could indulge in disturbing the public peace or commit any other offence.
Accordingly, the other allegations qua the subsidiary offences under Sections 34 and 120B IPC were also held to be non est.
Placing reliance on the State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Court held that allowing the continuance of the proceedings against the appellant will result in gross abuse of the process of lawfue to the fact that the allegations as set out in the FIR do not disclose necessary ingredients for any cognizable offence. The appeal is allowed accordingly and the pending criminal case against the appellant was quashed.