Supreme Court quashes FIR for lack of ingredients under Section 153A and 504 IPC: Shiv Prasad Semwal vs. State of Uttarakhand (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: March 19, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 220

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can a news article critical of an individual, alleging land encroachment, be considered an act promoting enmity between groups or an intentional insult to provoke a breach of peace? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where an FIR was filed against the director of a news portal for publishing such an article. The Court held that the allegations did not disclose the necessary ingredients of offenses under Sections 153A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and quashed the FIR. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint filed by Mr. Rajeev Savara, who claimed to own land in Uttarakhand and had planned a foundation stone laying ceremony on March 20, 2020. The ceremony was to be attended by the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand and a religious leader. Mr. Savara alleged that the accused, including the appellant, Shiv Prasad Semwal, director of the e-newspaper ‘Parvat Jan’, published a defamatory news article on March 17, 2020, claiming that the land was government land and that Mr. Savara had unlawfully encroached upon it. Mr. Savara asserted that the article was published to blackmail him and tarnish his reputation, and that it was done without proper fact-finding. He further alleged that the publication was intended to incite a breach of peace. Based on this complaint, FIR No. 31 of 2020 was registered against the appellant and others for offenses under Sections 153A, 500, 501, 504, 34, and 120B of the IPC.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, Shiv Prasad Semwal, filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 881 of 2020 in the High Court of Uttarakhand, challenging the FIR. He argued that the allegations did not disclose any cognizable offense. The High Court dismissed the petition on July 20, 2020. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition. During the investigation, the police dropped charges against the newspaper ‘Parvat Jan’, its editor, and its director, focusing solely on the appellant and the journalist, Gunanand Jakhmola. The investigation also dropped charges under Sections 500 and 501 of the IPC, retaining only offenses under Sections 153A and 504 read with Sections 34 and 120B of the IPC.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

• Section 153A IPC: This section deals with promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or community. It states:
  
  “153A. Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.—(1) Whoever—(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, or (c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 504 IPC: This section addresses intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. It states:
  
  “504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.—Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 34 IPC: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 120B IPC: This section deals with criminal conspiracy.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the news article did not contain any content that promoted or attempted to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity between different groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or community. The appellant contended that the article was merely a report about a proposed foundation stone ceremony on a disputed piece of land.
• The appellant submitted that the news article was based on a Facebook post by journalist Gunanand Jakhmola and that the appellant was not liable for the publication.
• The appellant contended that the ingredients of the offense under Section 153A IPC were not met as there was no communal, caste, religious, or race-based imputation in the news article.
• The appellant argued that the appropriate remedy for the complainant, if aggrieved by the news article, would have been to file a complaint for defamation rather than misusing the process of criminal law.
• The appellant submitted that the news article did not provoke the complainant to breach public peace, thus, the ingredients of Section 504 IPC were also not met.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the news article, by alleging that the complainant was an enemy of the mountains and had no concern for their well-being, created a possibility of strife between the people of the hills and the people of the plains.
• The State contended that the journalist Gunanand Jakhmola stated that his Facebook post was manipulated, suggesting that the investigation should not be limited to the offenses for which the FIR was registered.
• The State submitted that the appellant, by publishing a false and malicious news article, generated the possibility of discontent between different groups, thus making out a case under Section 153A IPC.
• The State argued that the offenses under Section 504 read with Sections 34 and 120B IPC were also applicable due to the publication of the article.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the contents of the news report constitute any cognizable offense so as to justify the investigation into the allegations made in the FIR against the appellant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [2007] 5 SCC 1: The Supreme Court held that for applying Section 153A IPC, the presence of two or more groups or communities is essential.
• State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992] Supp (1) SCC 335: This case laid down the principles governing the exercise of power by the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.
• Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with criminal conspiracy.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [2007] 5 SCC 1 to emphasize that Section 153A IPC requires the presence of two or more groups or communities.
• The Court applied the principles laid down in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992] Supp (1) SCC 335 to justify quashing the FIR, as the allegations did not disclose any cognizable offense.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of essential ingredients for offenses under Sections 153A and 504 of the IPC. The Court emphasized that the news article did not promote enmity between groups or incite a breach of peace. The Court focused on the absence of any reference to different groups or communities in the article and the lack of evidence that the complainant was provoked to breach public peace. The Court also noted that the article was primarily focused on the complainant’s alleged land encroachment and did not target any specific group or community. The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the factual matrix and the legal requirements for the offenses alleged.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the State’s interpretation of the news article, stating that it was “far-fetched and unconvincing.” The Court found that the article was primarily focused on the complainant’s alleged land encroachment and did not target any specific group or community. The Court also found that there was no evidence that the complainant was provoked to breach public peace, which is a necessary ingredient of the offense under Section 504 IPC.

The Court observed, “Upon careful perusal of the offending news article, reproduced (supra) , it is crystal clear that there is no reference to any group or groups of people in the said article. The publication focuses totally on the complainant imputing that he had encroached upon public land where the foundation stone laying ceremony was proposed at the hands of Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttarakhand.”

The Court further noted, “The lines referred to supra 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. Hence, the foundational facts essential to constitute the offence under Section 153A IPC are totally lacking from the allegations as set out in the FIR.”

Additionally, the Court stated, “There is no such allegation in the FIR that owing to the alleged offensive post attributable to the appellant, the complainant was provoked to such an extent that he could indulge in disturbing the public peace or commit any other offence. Hence, the FIR lacks the necessary ingredients of the said offence as well.”

Key Takeaways

• The judgment clarifies that for an offense under Section 153A of the IPC to be made out, there must be evidence of promoting enmity between different groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or community.
• The judgment emphasizes that for an offense under Section 504 of the IPC to be made out, there must be evidence of intentional insult with the intent to provoke a breach of peace.
• The judgment highlights the importance of a clear nexus between the alleged act and the elements of the offense for criminal prosecution.
• The judgment reiterates the principles laid down in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1992] Supp (1) SCC 335 regarding the High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings when the allegations do not disclose any cognizable offense.
• This case serves as a reminder that criticism of an individual, even if harsh, does not necessarily constitute an offense under Sections 153A or 504 of the IPC.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR No. 31 of 2020 registered at P.S. Muni Ki Reti, District Tehri Garhwal, against the appellant and all proceedings sought to be taken against him.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a news article criticizing an individual for alleged land encroachment, without promoting enmity between groups or inciting a breach of peace, does not constitute offenses under Sections 153A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment reinforces the established legal principles regarding the requirements for these offenses and clarifies that mere criticism or allegations against an individual do not automatically attract criminal liability under these provisions. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court has reaffirmed the existing position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Shiv Prasad Semwal and quashed the FIR registered against him. The Court held that the news article published by the appellant did not contain the necessary ingredients to constitute offenses under Sections 153A and 504 of the IPC. The Court emphasized that the article did not promote enmity between groups or incite a breach of peace. This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the specific requirements of legal provisions when initiating criminal proceedings and protects freedom of speech within the bounds of law.