The court emphasized the need to protect freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and determined the FIR lacked basis for criminal charges under Sections 353(2) and 505(2).

ORDER :

S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned complaint and FIR in Crime No.42/2025 registered by the respondent – Police against the petitioner for an alleged offence punishable under Section 353 (2) of BNS , 2023 ( Section 505 (2) of IPC) and for other reliefs.

2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.SPP for the respondent – State and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned complaint and FIR do not disclose the commission of the alleged offence by the petitioner and the vague, bald, general and omnibus allegations made in the complaint do not contain the necessary ingredients to attract the alleged offence and as such, the impugned complaint and FIR deserve to be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(i) Imran Pratapgadhi vs. The State of Gujarat and Another ; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678

(ii) Shiv Prasad Semwal vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others ; (2024) 7 SCC 555

(iii) Javed Ahamad Hajam vs. The State of Maharashtra ; (2024) 4 SCC 156

(iv) Patricia Mukhim vs. State of Meghalaya and Others ; (2021) 15 SCC 35

(v) Manzar Sayeed Khan vs. State of Maharashtra and Another with Vinod Hansraj Goyal vs. State of Mahashtra ; (2007) 5 SCC 1

(vi) Bilal Ahmed Kaloo vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Bilal Ahmed Kalo; (1997) 7 SCC 431

(vii) Sri. B.Y. Vijayendra vs. Sri Prashant Makanur ; Crl.P.No. 5478/2024 dated 27.11.2024

(viii) Sri. Suresha and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and Another ; Crl.P.No. 5694/2024 dated 20.09.2024

(ix) Sri. B. Nagaraju and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and Another ; Crl.P.No. 13367/2024 dated 16.12.2024

(x) Sri Basavangouda R Patil vs. The State of Karnataka and Another ; Crl.P.No. 11842/2024 dated 12.12.2024

(xi) Naseeruddin and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and Another ; Crl.P.No. 4908/2022 and connected matters dated 16.11.2023

(xii) Rahul Sivasankart vs. CID and Another ; Crl.P.No. 2457/2024 dated 17.03.2025

(xiii) Sri Krishna Upadyaya vs. The State of Karnataka and Another ; Crl.P.No. 18261/2023 dated 27.09.2023

(xiv) Mohammed Ataulla A and Others vs. The State of Karnataka and Another ; Crl.P.No. 3768/2020 dated 05.10.2020

4. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP for the respondent – Police would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submits that in addition to the impugned complaint and FIR, the contents of the photos, videos and hate speech of the petitioner would indicate that he was guilty of the alleged offence and the petitioner having been involved in four other criminal cases, is not entitled to any relief in the present petition, which is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

6. Before adverting to the rival submissions of the parties, it would be appropriate to extract the complaint, which reads as under:-

7. As can be seen from the impugned complaint, it is alleged that the petitioner along with others were staging / holding a protest in front of the police station and the petitioner made allegation against the police authorities that they are targeting Hindu leaders by going to their houses during night hours thereby committing the alleged offence. In this context, it is relevant to state that the said allegation clearly does not constitute commission of the alleged o