Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kakani Govardhan Reddy, vs The State on 19 June, 2025
APHC010285082025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5903/2025
Between:
Kakani Govardhan Reddy ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
O.M.R Law Firm
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
Public Prosecutor
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The criminal petition has been filed seeking to quash the order dated
06.06.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.353 of 2025 in Cr.No.3 of 2025of the CID
Police Station, Mangalagiri, on the file of the learned VI Additional Civil Judge,
Junior Division, Guntur, and also the docket order dated 10.06.2025 in
Crl.M.P.No.353 of 2025 in the same crime.
2. The learned Magistrate based on a petition filed under Section 267 of
‘the Cr.P.C.,’ issued P.T warrant against the petitioner who served earlier as a
2
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.5903 of 2025
Dated 19.06.2025
Member of the Legislative Assembly of Sarvepalli Constituency of Nellore
District.
3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel and the Public Prosecutor.
4. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the
learned Magistrate without considering the intent of Section 267 of ‘the
Cr.P.C.,’ and without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the
case mechanically ordered for issuance of P.T warrant and that P.T warrant is
also not in the proper format. Based on the P.T warrant the petitioner was
arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate, who remanded him to
judicial custody vide order dated 10.06.2025, wherein also the learned
Magistrate has not examined the compliance of Section 41A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’
since the alleged offences are punishable less than seven years of
imprisonment. It is also pointed out that the allegations in Cr.No.3 of 2025 do
not attract the Sections mentioned in the F.I.R. In this regard, the learned
Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Patricia
Muhim v. State of Meghalaya1 in Crl.A.No.141 of 2021 (SLP (Crl.) No.103 of
2021 dated 08.03.2021wherein it is mentioned at para No.11 and 12 as under:
“11… In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P2., this Court
analyzed the ingredients of Sections 153-A and 505(2) IPC. It
was held that Section 153-A covers a case where a person by
“words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible
representations”, promotes or attempts to promote feeling of
enmity, hatred or ill will. Under Section 505(2) promotion of
1
(2021) 15 SCC 35
2
Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1
3
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.5903 of 2025
Dated 19.06.2025such feeling should have been done by making a publication
or circulating any statement or report containing rumour or
alarming news. Mens rea was held to be a necessary
ingredient for the offence under Sections 153-A and 505(2).
The common factor of both the sections being promotion of
feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious
or racial or linguistics or religious groups or castes or
communities, it is necessary that at least two such groups or
communities should be involved. It was further held in Bilal
Ahmed Kaloo (supra) that merely inciting the feelings of one
community or group without any reference to any other
community or group cannot attract any of the two sections.
The Court went on to highlight the distinction between the two
offences, holding that publication of words or representation is
sine qua non under Section 505.It is also relevant to refer to
the judgment of this Court in Ramesh v. Union of India3in
which it was held that words used in the alleged criminal
speech should be judged from the standards of reasonable,
strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of
weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in
every hostile point of view. The standard of an ordinary
reasonable man or as they say in English law “the man on the
top of a Clapham omnibus” should be applied.
12. This Court in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of
India & Ors 4 had referred to the Canadian Supreme Court
decision in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v.
Whatcott5. In that judgment, the Canadian Supreme Court set
out what it considered to be a workable approach in
interpreting “hatred” as is used in legislative provisions
prohibiting hate speech. The first test was for the Courts to
apply the hate speech prohibition objectively and in so doing,
ask whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and
circumstances, would view the expression asexposing the
protected group to hatred. The second test was to restrict
interpretation of the legislative term “hatred” to those extreme
manifestations of the emotion described by the words
“detestation” and “vilification”. This would filter out and protect
speech which might be repugnant and offensive, but does not
incite the level of abhorrence. delegitimization and rejection
that risks causing discrimination or injury. The third test was
3
(1988) 1 SCC 668
4
(2014) 11 SCC 477
5
(2013) 1 SCR 467
4
Dr.YLR, J
Crl.P.No.5903 of 2025
Dated 19.06.2025
for Courts to focus their analysis on the effect of the
expression at issue. namely, whether it is likely to expose the
targeted person or group to hatred by others. Mere
repugnancy of the ideas expressed is insufficient to constitute
the crime attracting penalty.”
5. On a bare perusal of the averments of the F.I.R and also the remand
order passed by the learned Magistrate, it appears that the learned Magistrate
without applying his mind mechanically passed the remand order pursuant to
execution of P.T warrant without going into the fundamental and important fact
whether a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner in the F.I.R
and other records for the offences punishable under Section 153-A, 505(2),
120-B of ‘the I.P.C‘. Since the matter is required to be examined in detail,
there shall be a stay of all further proceedings in Cr.No.3 of 2025 of the CID
Police Station, Mangalagiri, on the file of the learned VI Additional Civil Judge,
Junior Division, Guntur till 03.07.2025.
6. List on 03.07.2025.
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Dated:19.06.2025
KMS