Karnataka High Court
Manishkumar Padmanabha Rai vs State Of Karnataka on 30 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6425
CRL.P No. 201069 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 201178 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201069 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201178 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
IN CRL.P.NO.201069/2025:
BETWEEN:
MANISHKUMAR PADMANABHA RAI
S/O PADMANABHA RAI
AGED 34 YEARS,
B-608, 6TH FLOOR,
Digitally signed B-BLOCK, SBR KEERTHIPRIME,
by RENUKA KATTAMNALLUR,
Location: HIGH BANGALORE-560049.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VINOD KUMAR M., AND
SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY CEN POLICE STATION,
KALABURAGI-585102.
REP. BY ITS: ADDL.STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI-585102.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6425
CRL.P No. 201069 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 201178 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. AMARNATH
S/O BHEEMSHA SHIRWAL
AGED 36 YEARS,
R/O LIG-28, KHB COLONY,
SHANTI NAGAR, KALABURAGI,
KALABURAGI CITY-585103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP AND
SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR DATED 04/03/2024, IN CRIME NO.14/2024 OF
KALABURAGI CITY CEN POLICE STATION, PENDING IN THE
FILE OF THE IST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
GULBARGA, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
504, 294 OF IPC 1860_PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.
IN CRL.P.NO.201178/2025:
BETWEEN:
SRI LOKESH AMBEKALLU ALIAS LOKESH A S
S/O SRIPATHI GOWDA
AGED 56 YEARS, R/A NEAR KADDU MALLESHWARA
TEMPLE, 48, 1ST TEMPLE ST, VYALIKAVAL,
KODANDARAMPURA, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU- 560003,
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VINOD KUMAR M., AND
SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY CEN POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI-585102.
REP BY ITS: ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI-585102.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6425
CRL.P No. 201069 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 201178 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. AMARNATH
S/O BHEEMSHA SHIRWAL
AGED 36 YEARS,
R/A LIG-28, KHB COLONY, SHANTI NAGAR,
KALABURAGI, KALABURAGI CITY-585103
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SIDDALING P. PATIL, ADDL. SPP
SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.
(OLD), U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR DATED 04/03/2024, IN CRIME NO 14/2024 OF KALABURGI
CITY CEN POLICE STATION, PENDING IN THE FILE OF THE IST
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J M F C, GULBARGA, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 504, 294 OF IPC
1860 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ADMISSION ON 29.10.2025 COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING;
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The captioned petitions are filed seeking quashing of
the proceedings pending in Crime No.14/2024 for the
offences punishable under Sections 504 and 294 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
2. The facts leading to the case are as follows:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6425
CRL.P No. 201069 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 201178 of 2025
HC-KAR
The second respondent/defacto complainant, who is
the Vice President of District Youth Congress has lodged a
complaint on 04.03.2024 alleging that while scrolling
through Instagram Reels, he came across a profile named
'Gulaam Gang Official'. He has carried out a post allegedly
defaming Minister Priyank Kharge and Dr.Yathindra
Siddaramaiah MLC by editing their speeches with the
background music and captions that were claimed to be
mocking in nature. The complainant stated that he and
other followers of the said leaders were deeply hurt by the
post. Based on his complaint, the police registered the
aforementioned FIR for the offences punishable under
Sections 504 and 294 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short 'IPC').
3. Petitioners' counsel reiterating the grounds of
petitions has vehemently argued and contended that the
ingredients of Sections 504 and 294 IPC are not made out.
Even on plain reading of the complaint, he submits that
post in question is in the nature of political satire and
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6425
CRL.P No. 201069 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 201178 of 2025
HC-KAR
cannot be construed as an intentional insult to provoke
breach of peace. He would further point out that Section
294 of IPC deals with obscene acts and songs intended to
cause annoyance to others. Therefore, on reading the
entire content of complaint, it is clear that it has no
application to political satire or criticism of public figures.
4. The reliance is placed on following judgments:
i. Imran Pratapgadhi vs. State of Gujarat
and Another.1
ii. Aveek Sarkar and Another vs. State of
West Bengal and Ohters.2
iii. Balasaheb vs. State of Mah.3
iv. B.N.John vs. State of U.P. & Another.4
5. It is further submitted that in a similar
complaint registered on identical facts, FIR has been
quashed, which is evidenced at Annexures-A and B
respectively.
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 678
2
(2014) 4 SCC 257
3
2003 (1) MH.L.J.
4
SLP (CRL.)NO.2184/2024 D.D.02.01.2025
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6425
CRL.P No. 201069 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 201178 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. Per contra, Additional State Public Prosecutor
justifying registration of crime contends that the matter
needs investigation and therefore, no indulgence
warranted at the hands of this Court, which would result in
interrupting the investigation in the present case of hand.
7. Having heard learned counsels on record, the
following point would arise for consideration:
"Whether allegations made in the complaint
and materials placed on record prima facie
constitute offences punishable under Sections
504 or 294 of IPC so as to warrant continuation
of criminal proceedings?"
8. Perusal of the written complaint evidenced at
Annexures-A and B respectively disclose that post in
question was a social media reel carrying edited content of
speeches by political leaders accompanied by background
music and captions. There is no allegation of use of
obscene acts or vulgar language or any deliberate act
intended to cause annoyance to others. Therefore, prima
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6425
CRL.P No. 201069 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 201178 of 2025
HC-KAR
facie, the ingredients of Section 294 of IPC, even if
complaint is accepted on its face value, is not made out.
9. As regards Section 504 of IPC, which pertains to
intentional insult or intention to provoke breach of peace,
the complaint merely states that the complainant and
other followers of certain political leaders were hurt by the
post. Being hurt or offended is not the legal standards
that would attract the ingredients of Section 504 of IPC.
There must be a clear mens rea to provoke breach of
peace, which is prima facie absent here.
10. Section 294 of IPC deals with obscene acts and
songs to annoy the public. To attract 294 following must
be established:
i. Obscene act or song
ii. Done in or near public place
iii. That should cause annoyance to others
11. The term obscene connotes that something is
morally repulsive, indecent, and offensive to the public's
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6425
CRL.P No. 201069 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 201178 of 2025
HC-KAR
standards of decency and propriety. The term obscene act
as defined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Aveek Sarkar
and Another vs. State of West Bengal and others5, is
defined as under:
i. If it is lascivious
ii. It appeals to the prurient interest
iii. It tends to deprave and corrupt persons who
are likely to read, see or hear the matter
alleged to be obscene.
12. In the present case, the material placed on
record reveals that the reel in question merely comprises
edited video clips containing speeches of certain political
leaders, accompanied by background music and captions.
A close examination of the said content would make it
abundantly clear that there are no obscene words,
gestures, or visual depictions which would attract the
essential ingredients of the offence under Section 294 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The post, at its highest,
5
(2014) 4 SCC 257
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6425
CRL.P No. 201069 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 201178 of 2025
HC-KAR
appears to be a satirical or mocking representation of
political figures. Merely because the content criticizes or
ridicules public personalities, it cannot, by any stretch of
imagination, be construed as obscene within the meaning
of Section 294 IPC.
13. Political satire, parody, or commentary on
public figures even if couched in harsh, sarcastic, or
unpalatable language forms an integral part of the
democratic fabric and falls within the legitimate ambit of
the right to free speech and expression guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has consistently
held that while adjudging allegations of obscenity, Courts
must adopt a pragmatic approach and be sensitive to
evolving social standards, changing notions of morality,
and contemporary perceptions of what constitutes
obscenity. The concept of obscenity cannot be judged in
isolation or by applying outdated moral standards, but
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6425
CRL.P No. 201069 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 201178 of 2025
HC-KAR
must instead be assessed in the context of the society's
current ethos and tolerance level.
14. Viewed in this light, the invocation of Section
294 IPC in the present case appears wholly misconceived
and unwarranted. The inclusion of the said provision
seems to be a deliberate attempt to give a colour of
cognizable offence to what is essentially a non-cognizable
matter. It is pertinent to note that Section 504 IPC, by
itself, is a non-cognizable offence, and therefore, the
second respondent could not have resorted to the police
machinery without obtaining prior permission from the
jurisdictional Magistrate as mandated under Section
155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By
ingeniously adding Section 294 IPC, the complainant has
attempted to circumvent this statutory embargo and to set
the criminal law in motion without judicial sanction. The
judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners squarely apply to the facts of the present case
and fortify this Court's conclusion.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6425
CRL.P No. 201069 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 201178 of 2025
HC-KAR
15. In view of the discussion made hereinabove,
even if the averments in the complaint are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety, the same do not
prima facie disclose the commission of any cognizable
offence. The allegations are manifestly motivated by
political considerations and continuation of the criminal
proceedings would result in harassment of the petitioners
and constitute a clear abuse of the process of law. This
Court, therefore, finds it to be a fit case for exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, to secure the ends of justice and to
prevent the misuse of the criminal justice system.
16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The criminal petitions are hereby allowed.
ii. The proceedings in Crime No.14/2024
registered by Kalaburagi City CEN Police
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6425
HC-KAR
Station, pending on the file of the I
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable
under Sections 504 and 294 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, are hereby quashed
insofar as the present petitioners are
concerned.
iii. In view of disposal of the main petitions, all
pending interlocutory applications, if any,
stand disposed of as having become
infructuous.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
SRT
CT:SI
