Back
WhatsApp Warning on Interfaith Invite Fails Obscenity Test: Karnataka HC Delivers Verdict
In a swift ruling, the , presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Rai K , quashed criminal proceedings against petitioner Abdul Khavee. The case stemmed from a WhatsApp message sent to Mohammed Aliuddin @ Ali Baba, criticizing the invitation of Hindu priests to a Muslim-owned function hall's inauguration. Charged under , for alleged obscenity, the court found the message fell far short of the legal threshold.
The Spark: A Message Before the Inauguration
The controversy ignited on , just two days before the grand opening of NJ Kalaburagi Kalyana Mantapa near Aland Check Post Road, Kalaburagi. Owned by complainant Mohammed Aliuddin @ Ali Baba's brother, Mohd. Allauddin Junaidi @ Gouse Baba, the event aimed to bridge communities by inviting Hindu and Muslim religious leaders alongside political figures.
That evening around 7 p.m., Ali Baba received a WhatsApp from Abdul Khavee's number (linked to the petitioner) on his mobile 9844787861. The message, written in Hindi-Urdu mix, urged restraint: it condemned inviting "those who humiliated Muslims," called Hindu priests suited only for "pooja," and lamented their alleged disrespect for Allah-believers. Ali Baba filed a complaint the same day at Chowk Police Station, leading to Crime No. 139/2021 . Police investigated, filed a charge-sheet in C.C. No. 12380/2022 , and on , the , took cognizance and issued summons.
Abdul Khavee approached the High Court via Criminal Petition No. 202013 of 2025 under (now ), seeking to quash the entire process.
Petitioner's Plea: No Obscenity, Just Opinion
The petitioner's counsel argued that even taking the complaint at face value, the message lacked any obscene, , or prurient content required under . It was a personal critique of the event's guest list, not material tending to " ." Continuing the trial would be futile and an .
Prosecution's Stand: Investigation Done, Let Trial Proceed
The State, represented by , countered that investigation was complete, charge-sheet filed, and proceedings should not be halted prematurely.
Court's Sharp Scrutiny: Obscenity Demands More Than Disapproval
Justice Rajesh Rai K meticulously dissected the message, which lamented the invitees' alleged ill-treatment of Muslims and ignorance of Islamic respect. He quoted verbatim: it punishes publishing or transmitting " " material appealing to " " or tending "to ."
"No obscenity here," the court held. The message questioned interfaith optics but transmitted nothing sexually suggestive or corrupting. Echoing the news coverage of the verdict, it emphasized: the content
"reveals that the petitioner has questioned the presence of Hindu religious priests... [but] has not sent any such obscene messages."
Deeming trial a " " and proceedings an " ," the bench invoked to intervene early.
Key Observations
“On careful examination of the above whatsapp message, the same reveals that the petitioner has questioned the presence of Hindu religious priests in the inaugural ceremony of the function hall by stating that, they treated Muslims very badly and also didn't respect them.” (Para 9)
“Whoever publishes or transmits... any material which is or appeals to the or if its effect is such as to tend to ...” ( , quoted in Para 10)
“the petitioner has not sent any such obscene messages, neither published nor transmitted any obscene messages to the complainant. The ingredients of , does not attract in the case on hand.” (Para 11)
“even if a trial is conducted against this petitioner, it is a .” (Para 11)
“continuation of proceedings is nothing but of Court and same is liable to be quashed.” (Para 12)
Clean Slate: Proceedings Fully Quashed
The petition succeeded on . The court set aside the cognizance order and summons of , and quashed the charge-sheet in C.C. No. 12380/2022 entirely.
This decision underscores limits on —a provision often stretched to cyber defamation or hate speech cases. It signals courts' readiness to quash misuse where core ingredients like obscenity are absent, potentially shielding critical opinions on communal events while preserving the law for genuine prurient content. For digital communicators, it's a reminder: disagreement isn't depravity.
