Saijoon C. Kidangoor vs State Of Kerala

Ashok Menon, J

The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the F.I.R. in Crime No.366/2021 of Angamaly Police Station, wherein he has been arraigned

as the 2nd accused for having committed the offences punishable under Section 153 of the I.P.C. and under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.

The allegation against him is that he had republished the contents of an already published news item, which was circulated by the 1st accused in the

WhatsApp and had come up in Asianet News and in Mathrubhoomi daily and also in Youtube as against the contesting candidates in the 2021

Elections. The facts in brief is thus:

The de facto complainant, who is the Mandalam President of Janathadal (S) Party, filed a complaint in support of a contesting candidate of Janathadal

(S) Party from Angamaly in the Assembly Election. The said candidate was an accused in a crime registered in Aluva Police Station for offences

punishable under Section 376 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The complaint in the said case was quashed subsequently by this Court and further

proceedings were dropped in the judgment in Crl.M.C.No.2737/2013. The de facto complainant preferred a complaint, on the basis of which, the

aforesaid crime was registered against the petitioner as the 2nd accused. The allegation in the complaint being registered as Crime No.2141/2013 by

the Aluva East Police Station is that the 1st accused had uploaded an already published article in the social media. The petitioner had allegedly

republished the news contents, which were already aired in the Asianet News and Mathrubhoomi daily.

The petitioner was summoned to the Angamaly Police Station and he was questioned. He states that he has not done anything to attract offence

under the Sections which were mentioned in the F.I.R., leading the public to riot. The petitioner therefore seeks to quash the entire proceedings in the

aforesaid crime.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

A reading of the F.I.R., which was subsequently produced, indicates that the 1st accused had published some articles against the Janathadal

candidate in the WhatsApp account and the petitioner/2nd accused had published that in Facebook, thus attracting the offence. To constitute an

offence under Section 153 of the I.P.C., it is necessary that the act must be illegal, malignant or done wantonly. The act done shall cause provocation

to some person with the intention that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed, knowing it to be likely that such provocation

will cause the offence of rioting. The petitioner had only allegedly shared some materials, which was published by the 1st accused in his Facebook

account. But it does not reveal that the Facebook post shared by the petitioner had caused provocation to anyone to commit rioting.

Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act provides that if a person causing, through any means of communication, a nuisance of

himself to any person by repeated or undesirable or anonymous call, letter, writing, message, e-mail or through a messenger, shall be punished. It is

essential that a person should cause nuisance to himself or any other person by means of communication. Only then an offence under Section 120(o)

of the Kerala Police Act be attracted.

In the instant case, the petitioner had repeated certain posts in his Facebook account. The news item regarding a candidate for the Assembly

Election getting involved in a criminal case was already published in the news media. The petitioner had only shared it through his Facebook. There is

no allegation that his act of publishing had caused any riot among any group of persons. The allegation in the F.I.R. does not contain any offence

under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act as well because he has not caused any nuisance to himself or to the de facto complainant or to any

other person.

Under the above circumstances, I find that neither of the offences alleged against the petitioner is attracted in this F.I.R. I find support in two

decisions of this Court in Shibu v. State of Kerala, MANU/KE/2307/2019a nd Sajidh D. v. State of Kerala, MANU/KE/5958/201.9 Hence, the

F.I.R. registered against the petitioner is not sustainable and the Crl.M.C. is allowed and the entire proceedings as against the petitioner alone for

offences punishable under Section 153 of the I.P.C. and under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act based on the F.I.R. in Crime No.366/2021 of

Angamaly Police Station shall stand quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the petitioner is discharged and set at liberty.