Allowed

Sri. Sanjay Gowda Kottigehara v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2026CRL.P/7804/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR for a facebook post referring to beef biryani distribution; court held the post made no communal allegation, applied the reasonable-person standard from Supreme Court precedent, and held registration was gross abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR and proceedings in Crime No.50/2019 of Banakal PS under Sections 153, 153A and 505(2) IPC quashed against the petitioner.

Sri. Sanjay Gowda Kottigehara Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:3358 CRL.P No. 7804 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7804 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SANJAY GOWDA KOTTIGEHARA S/O SUNDRESH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT KOTIGEHARA, BANAKAL MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 113.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BANAKAL PS REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE PSI BANAKAL P S BANAKAL, MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 113.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ASMA KOUSAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 & 2)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.50/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 153, 153(A) AND 505(2) OF IPC REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT POLICE ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C., MUDIGERE (DOCUMENT NO.1 AND 2) AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:3358 CRL.P No. 7804 of 2020

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner being the accused in Crime No.50/2019 of Banakal Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 153, 153A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), pending on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC, Mudigere, is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶25

Heard Sri Suyog Herale E., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Asma Kousar, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the materials on record.

¶26

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶27

"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:3358 CRL.P No. 7804 of 2020

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

¶32

REASONS

¶33

The Police Officer by name, Santhosh Kumar filed the first information and it is a suo moto complaint against the petitioner and an unknown person stating that the petitioner is a facebook user and he posted a message in facebook, which reads as under:

¶34

”§tPÀ�ï£À°è zÀ£ÀzÀ ªÀiÁA¸À ©jAiÀiÁ¤ ºÀAagÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ EwÛÃZÉUÉ PÉ® ¢£ÀUÀ¼À

¶35

»AzÉ £ÀqÉ¢gÀÄªÀ ¸ÀvÀåªÁVzÉ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR�ÁVzÉ"

¶36

According to the learned Additional SPP, it gives raise to communal disharmony as fake news is being spread regarding distribution of biryani made of beef, to a particular group of persons. But on reading the actual post, no such allegations are made except saying that, beef biryani is being distributed in Banakal.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the copy of the FIR in Crime No.47/2019 of Banakal Police Station, registered on 12.08.2019 against the accused therein, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 5, 7 and

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:3358 CRL.P No. 7804 of 2020

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

11 of Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 and alleging that the accused therein was found carrying and transporting 15-20 kgs of beef in a bag and thereby committed the offence.

¶42

This post alleged to have been made by the petitioner is said to be in response to registration of the said case. This fact is not disputed by the prosecution. The petitioner in the facebook post referred to registration of the FIR regarding the beef that is being transported at Banakal. Of course, he referred to the word 'biryani' which is not in the FIR. But merely because the word 'biryani' is used, the same cannot be related to a particular group of persons, when there is no mentioning in the post. Any social media post is to be read in simple term without attaching or importing extra words as per the imagination of the informant. The post never says that such distribution of biryani is in a particular place or to a particular person. It is nothing but the fine imagination of the informant, who is a Police officer. I do not find any support to attract Sections 5, 7 and 11 of Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964, to the facts of the present case.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Imran

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:3358 CRL.P No. 7804 of 2020

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Pratapgadhi V/s State of Gujarat and Anr¹ , where the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized its views based on its various judgments rendered on the subject and one of the conclusions that was arrived at, reads as under:

¶48

"(vi)-When an offence punishable under Section 196 of BNS is alleged, the effect of the spoken or written words will have to be considered based on standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on the standards of people with weak and oscillating minds. The effect of the spoken or written words cannot be judged on the basis of the standards of people who always have a sense of insecurity or of those who always perceive criticism as a threat to their power or position."

¶49

Learned counsel also places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Javed Ahmad Hajam V/s State of Maharashtra and Anr² where the Hon'ble Apex Court, by referring to its earlier decision in Imran Pratapgadhi (supra), reiterated that the effect of the words used by the accused on his WhatsApp status will have to be judged from the standards of reasonable women and men. We

¶50

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678

¶51

2 2024 (4) SCC 156

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:3358 CRL.P No. 7804 of 2020

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

cannot apply the standards of people with weak and vacillating minds. It is also highlighted that our country has been a democratic republic for more than 75 years and the people of our country know the importance of democratic values. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the words will promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious groups. The Court has also reiterated that the test to be applied is not the effect of the words on some individuals with weak minds or who see a danger in every hostile point of view. The test is of the general impact of the utterances on reasonable people who are significant in numbers. Merely because a few individuals may develop hatred or ill will, it will not be sufficient to attract clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-A of IPC. These observations and the findings recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court aptly applies to the facts in the present case.

¶56

Unfortunately, the informant even though a Police Officer, chose to register a suo-moto complaint against the petitioner for a facebook post. Plain reading of the post, never imports any meaning as tried to be projected. The post says regarding registration of the criminal case for carrying the beef, which is a fact, as admittedly an FIR is registered in the very same police station in that regard. Under such circumstances,

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:3358 CRL.P No. 7804 of 2020

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

registration of the FIR is in gross abuse of process of law and hence the same is liable to be quashed.

¶61

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶64

(ii) The criminal proceedings initiated in Crime No.50/2019 of Banakal Police Station, Chikkamagaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 153, 153A and 505(2) of IPC, pending on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC, Mudigere, is hereby quashed against the petitioner.

¶65

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶66

MKM

¶67

CT:VS

Sri. Sanjay Gowda Kottigehara v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sanjay Gowda Kottigehara v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nirmala Vs B. R. Basavarajappa

Sri. Venkatesh a P Vs the State of Karnataka

Sheela G Nayak Vs State by

Peerapasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narasappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Sripathi Rao Vs State of Karnataka