'Will Give Wrong Message To Society': Kerala High Court Refuses To Stop Trial Against Man Who Allegedly Sent Death Threat To CM

The petitioner had allegedly sent the message “I will kill Pinarayi Vijayan” to the CM's Additional Private Secretary. He was booked under Sections 153 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot) 506(i) (criminal intimidation) of IPC and Section 120(o) (causing nuisance) of Kerala Police Act.

Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan noted that the petitioner who is a bank employee and not an illiterate person, should have been aware of the consequences of such a message. The Court said that the valuable time of police is lost in investigating such acts. The court further noted that "social media comments are a menace to society now".

It observed that not only the citizens, but the constitutional authorities are also maligned and defamed with derogatory statements, and "threat messages" are sent unnecessarily to the office of the constitutional authorities to "create panic among the police authorities". 

"When such allegations are there, this Court cannot ignore the same and shut its eyes and say that no offence is made out prima facie. Here is a case where the allegation is that the petitioner sent a message to the Additional Private Secretary to the Chief Minister of Kerala stating that he would kill the Chief Minister. Two such messages were sent. If this Court, even without a trial, declare that no offence is made out, it will give a wrong message to society. I am of the considered opinion that, in such cases, the accused should face trial and raise all the contentions before the trial court at the appropriate stage. The trial court will consider all contentions of the petitioner untrammled by any observation in this order. The upshot of the above discussion is that, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order".

“Even if it is sent as sent as a joke or because of the sad mood developed in the spur-of-the-moment, after the election results were published, the petitioner is expected to be aware of the consequences of the same, especially when he is not an illiterate person…. Unnecessarily, the valuable time of the police force will be spoiled by such acts. Therefore, it is the duty of the police and the court to give a message to society about the consequences of such acts,” it added. 

The petitioner had submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, the offences are not attracted. Further, it was argued that the statement of the Additional Private Secretary to Chief Minister was not taken. Further, it was also argued that the Ernakulam Town South Police had no jurisdiction to investigate the case as the message was received in Trivandrum. The petitioner had initially filed an application under Section 258 of Cr.PC before the Magistrate Court to stop the proceedings which was dismissed. Against this dismissal the petitioner approached the high court. 

At the outset the court in its order noted that nowadays, "it is a trend to send threatening messages" and use derogatory statements against constitutional authorities, including the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, Judges, etc., in "social media and other forums to get publicity".

"The police force will be forced to spend their valuable time to find out whether it is for publicity or with a specific motive. After making such statements, the accused will approach the court of law with a petition stating that no offence is made out or raising technical grounds to escape from the prosecution. The question to be decided in this case is whether, in such cases, the accused should face trial or the court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to prematurely terminate such cases," it observed.

The High Court observed that this was a serious case and it cannot declare that no offence was made out before the trial. 

It said that Section 258 Cr.P.C. is not a provision to discharge an accused, but a provision by which the court can stop the proceedings of a criminal case. Hence the court need not consider the ingredients of the offences alleged in detail while considering a Section 258 Cr.P.C. application to stop the proceedings, like an application for discharge considered by the court in the trial of warrant cases or the trial before the court of Sessions.

"In addition to that, here is a case where there is a threat to the life of a Chief Minister. There is a motive also alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner sent such a message on the date on which the election results were published, in which the Left Democratic Front, led by the Chief Minister, won the election for the second time. That is a mandate of people in a democracy.Such threatening messages are not only against an individual, but it is against democracy and ultimately against the people who participated in a democratic process.Such action should be handled with the Iron hand of the law, with a message to society". 

It thus dismissed the plea. 

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates K. K. Dheerendrakrishnan, M. Pramodh Kumar, N. P. Asha

Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. Seetha S. (Sr. PP)

Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet. 624 of 2023

Case Title: Abjijith M. v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 307