'No S.153A IPC Offence Without Presence Of Two Or More Communities' : Supreme Court Quashes Case Against Journalist

The Supreme Court reiterated that to constitute an offence under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, the essential ingredient is to create a sense of enmity and disharmony amongst two or more groups or communities, failing which no offence could be made out under Section 153A IPC.

“From a bare reading of the language of Section 153A IPC, it is clear that in order to constitute such offence, the prosecution must come out with a case that the words 'spoken' or 'written' attributed to the accused, 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.”, the Bench Comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed.

The aforesaid observation in the judgment authored by Justice BR Gavai came while deciding a plea of the Uttarakhand-based Parvatjan news portal operator named Shiv Prasad Semwal, who had assailed the decision of the High Court refusing to quash the pending criminal case under Section 153A IPC against him.

The complainant runs a foundation and had planned a foundation stone laying ceremony of 'Matra Ashraya-A collection museum' on the said land/property to be done by the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand.

The allegation levied against the Appellant was that he had published an article in the e-newspaper 'Parvatjan', wherein it was portrayed that the land on which the foundation stone was proposed to be laid was Government land which had been unlawfully occupied/encroached upon by the complainant.

Amongst other provisions, the provision of Section 153A IPC was invoked against the appellant alleging that the online post of the appellant created a sense of enmity and disharmony amongst the people of the hill community and the people of the plains.

However, the court was not convinced by the complainant's allegation as the foundational facts essential to constitute the offence under Section 153A IPC are lacking from the allegations as set out in the FIR.

The court noted that the lines used by the Appellant in his post only refer to the complainant, imputing that his activities are prejudicial to the hills.

“These words have no connection whatsoever with a group or groups of people or communities.”, the court stated.

“In the case of Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., this Court held that for applying 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.”, the court added.

Thus, while relying on the Bhajan Lal case, the court held that allowing the continuance of the proceedings against the appellant is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law because the allegations as set out in the FIR do not disclose necessary ingredients of any cognizable offence.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the pending criminal case against the appellant was quashed.

Counsel For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aditya Samaddar, AOR Mr. R K Mohit Gupta, Adv. Mr. Karan Kumar G, Adv. Mr. Akshay S, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pratap, Adv.

Counsel For Respondent(s) Mr. Jaswant Singh Rawat, AOR Ms. Rachna Gandhi, Adv. Mrs. Kamlesh Pant, Adv. Ms. Ikshita Parihar, Adv. Mr. S.K. Gandhi, Adv. Mr. Amogh Bansal, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR

Case Title: SHIV PRASAD SEMWAL VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 251

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment