Sec.505(1)(b) of IPC can be invoked if offending act induces or is likely to induce any person to commit offence against State or against public tranquility: Madras HC

Read Judgment: Mathivanan vs. The Inspector of Police 

Pankaj  Bajpai

Madurai, December 29, 2021: While calling the FIR to be an abuse of legal process and quashing the same, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that Section 120B of IPC couldnot be invoked as Mathivanan (Petitioner) was the sole accused whereas there must be a meeting of two or more minds to constitute the offence of conspiracy. 

The Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan observed that conspiracy is hatched to commit an offence mentioned u/s 120B and when the ingredients of the primary offences have been shown to be non-existent, the prosecution cannot hang on to Section 120B IPC alone. 

Going by the background of the case, the petitioner is an important office-bearer of a not-so-important political party, and he went on a sightseeing pleasure trip with his daughter and son-in-law to Sirumalai hills. He put out the photographs taken on the occasion in his Facebook page with a caption: “Trip to Sirumalai for shooting practice”. Although the petitioner tried to be funny and perhaps it was his maiden attempt at humour, Vadipatty Police did not find it to be a joke and they thought the petitioner was making preparations to wage war against the State. 

Accordingly, a crime was registered against the petitioner for the offences u/s 120B, 122, 505(1)(b) & 507 of IPC. Later, they arrested the petitioner and produced him before the jurisdictional magistrate for remanding him to custody. However, mercifully the Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatty, refused remand. Accordingly, the petitioner escaped incarceration by a whisker. Hence, present petition was filed for quashing of the FIR.  

After considering the evidences and submissions, the High Court noted that for an act to constitute a crime, there are four stages, i)intention, ii)preparation, iii)attempt and iv)accomplishment. While penal laws intervene only at the third and fourth stages normally, even preparation is made an offence in certain cases.

To wage war would require several steps and crossing of stages, and there has to be mobilization of men as well as accumulation of arms and ammunition, added the Court. 

“Except giving the title mentioned above to the photographs amateurishly taken on the occasion of his trip to Sirumalai hills, the petitioner has done nothing else. The petitioner is aged 62 years. His daughter is standing next to him. His son-in-law is also seen in the photograph. Four other photographs capturing the scenic beauty of the place have also been posted. No weapon or proscribed material was recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner neither intended to wage war nor did he commit any act towards preparation therefor”, observed the Court. 

Justice Swaminathan observed that the provision of Section 505(1)(b) of IPC can be invoked only if the offending act induces or is likely to induce any person to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility, whereas in the present case, the photographs with the caption was posted only in the petitioner’s Facebook page.

Similarly, Section 507 IPC can be invoked only if the person sending the communication had concealed his identity, whereas in the present case, the petitioner had posted the photographs along with the caption in his Facebook page, added the Single Judge.  

Hence, the High Court allowed the criminal petition for quashing the FIR.