Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J
ANANTKUMAR DATTATREYA HEGDE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's background and allegations (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the nature of the alleged offences (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis on freedom of speech and intent (Para 6) |
| 4. conclusion quashing the fir against the petitioner (Para 8) |
CAV ORDER
2. Heard Sri Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.
The petitioner is accused No.16 and respondent No.2 is the complainant/Panchayat Development Officer (‘PDO’). A complaint comes to be registered on 05-03-2024 alleging that the petitioner along with others on 04-03-2024 at 1.00 p.m. were wanting to hoist Bhagwan Hanuman Dhwaj and install a particular board of Veera Savarkar at Tenginagundi Beach, Bhatkal. Therefore, the 2nd respondent/PDO registers the complaint against 21 accused all said to be Hindu Karyakarthas for the afore-quoted offences. The registration of crime has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
5. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the crime is registered as the acts of the petitioner h
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
