Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
Naveen Kumar G., S/o. Aitahappa Ranya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Through Kadaba PS, Represented By Spp – Respondent
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)
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).
The FIR lacks necessary ingredients for offences under Section 196(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, justifying its quashing due to vagueness.
The court established that mere expressions of political support do not constitute an offence under Section 153A IPC unless they promote enmity between distinct groups.
Every citizen has right to offer criticism for every decision of State – He has right to say he is unhappy with any decision of State – Every citizen of India has a right to be critical of action of ....
(1) Hurting religious and social sentiments of one community – Acceptance of freedom to express a view which may not accord with mainstream are cardinal values – A society wedded to rule of law canno....
The court ruled that mere dissent or criticism of government actions does not constitute an offence under Section 153A IPC unless it promotes enmity or hatred.
The judgment established that to prove an offence under Section 153A IPC, there must be evidence of promoting enmity between different groups, and mere statements or social media posts may not be suf....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
