Back
quashes FIR against shopkeeper for PM insult citing general and omnibus allegations
In a significant ruling that underscores the limits of criminal prosecution for political speech, the has quashed an FIR against a shopkeeper who allegedly made insulting remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Justice Venkatesh Naik T, presiding over a single-judge bench at the , held that the complaint lacked the of the offences invoked and amounted to an abuse of the legal process.
A dispute over barricades spirals into a criminal case
The case stemmed from an incident on , near the shop of Imtiyaz Nuruddin Chinchali in Athani, Belagavi district. According to the complainant, a social worker, the petitioner had placed barricades on the road in front of his shop, causing inconvenience to the public. When questioned, the petitioner allegedly used insulting words directed at the Prime Minister. A complaint was lodged four days later, on , leading to the registration of Crime No. 29/2026 at under Sections 285 (danger or obstruction in a public way) and 352 ( with intent to provoke ) of the .
Arguments: A political statement versus a personal insult
Chinchali, represented by advocate , contended that the complaint did not allege that he had abused or insulted the complainant. The only allegation was that he made a statement against the Prime Minister. He argued that a political remark cannot be converted into a personal legal prosecution, and that the offence under Section 352 BNS was not attracted as there was no directed at the complainant.
The State, represented by High Court Government Pleader , and the complainant’s counsel , argued that the complaint disclosed a . They submitted that the petitioner had placed barricades causing inconvenience, and when questioned, he used insulting words with an intention to provoke a . They urged that the matter required investigation and that disputed facts could not be examined in a .
Court’s analysis: General allegations cannot sustain criminal proceedings
Justice Naik scrutinized the complaint and the material on record. He observed that the only allegation against the petitioner was that he made some statement against the Prime Minister—there was no specific claim that he abused or insulted the complainant to provoke a . The court noted that the contents of the complaint were “.” It also highlighted the unexplained four-day delay in lodging the complaint.
The court referred to the ’s ruling in , which held that mere abuse, discourtesy, or rudeness does not amount to unless the requisite intention or knowledge to provoke a is established. Applying this principle, the court found that the of Sections 285 and 352 BNS were absent.
“In the instant case, no offence has been made out in the FIR and complaint, the continuation of proceedings would amount to an .” — Justice Venkatesh Naik T
Decision: Proceedings quashed in the interest of justice
Allowing the criminal petition, the High Court quashed the entire proceedings in Crime No. 29/2026 pending before the . The court held that the allegations did not disclose the of the alleged offences and that continuing the case would be an .
The ruling serves as a reminder that criminal law cannot be used to prosecute individuals for political speech unless it directly and intentionally insults a specific person with the intent to provoke a . It reinforces the high threshold required for invoking Section 352 BNS and the importance of examining the specific nature of allegations before allowing a prosecution to proceed.
