High Court of Karnataka Quashes FIR Against Activist Following Voluntary Affidavit To Maintain Harmony

In a significant development for digital discourse and public accountability, the High Court of Karnataka has quashed an ongoing criminal proceeding against an activist. The decision, delivered by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, underscores the judiciary's role in balancing the right to express concerns with the broader requirement of maintaining social harmony and respect for religious institutions.

Case Background

The petition was filed by Sri Girish Mattenavar, who challenged the registration of Crime No. 28/2026 at the Dharmasthala Police Station. The FIR, registered before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, invoked Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, which pertains to statements created or promoted to incite enmity, hatred, or ill-will between classes. The petitioner had been under scrutiny for various social media posts in which he expressed dissatisfaction regarding the investigation of a local case involving the death of a victim.

Arguments and Voluntary Undertaking

During the proceedings, the petitioner offered to resolve the matter through a formal affidavit of undertaking. In this document, he expressed profound reverence for "Shree Kshetra Dharmasthala" and the presiding deity, Lord Sri Manjunatha. He clarified that his online public criticism was never intended to malign the temple or its traditions, but rather to advocate for a more rigorous and transparent investigation into the alleged crimes.

The counsel for the petitioner emphasized that the activist’s intent was purely based on his quest for justice for victims. In response, the State, represented by the State Public Prosecutor, acknowledged the submission of the undertaking, allowing the Court to consider a resolution that emphasizes future peace rather than continued litigation.

Legal Analysis and The Path to Harmony

The Court found that the petitioner’s commitment to refrain from circulating materials that could cause controversy provided a suitable ground for relief. By utilizing powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ), the High Court opted for closure rather than criminal prosecution, signaling that the law expects citizens to exercise "utmost care, responsibility and restraint" when participating in public and digital discourse.

Key Observations

The judgment highlighted the necessity of caution in sensitive public discussions through the following observations:

  • "I further solemnly undertake before this Hon'ble Court that I shall not hereafter post, publish, circulate or share any material of the nature complained of in the present proceedings on Instagram or on any other social media platform or website."
  • "The affidavit of undertaking of the petitioner is taken on record and accepting the same, the criminal petition stands disposed and the impugned crime ... stands quashed ."
  • "It is made clear that in the event of breach of the undertaking given in the affidavit, the matter would be viewed seriously."

Court's Decision

Accepting the petitioner’s commitment, Justice M. Nagaprasanna ordered the quashing of the FIR pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady. The Court’s decision serves as a stern reminder that while the search for justice is a protected activity, it must remain within the confines of non-inflammatory conduct. The ruling effectively mandates that the petitioner must adhere to his promise, with the Court leaving no ambiguity that any future breach of the provided undertaking will result in severe legal consequences.