[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sanjay Gowda Kottigehara vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3358
CRL.P No. 7804 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7804 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. SANJAY GOWDA KOTTIGEHARA
S/O SUNDRESH GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT KOTIGEHARA, BANAKAL
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 113.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH BANAKAL PS
REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed 2. THE PSI BANAKAL P S
by NANDINI B G BANAKAL, MUDIGERE TALUK
Location: High CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 113.
Court of
Karnataka ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ASMA KOUSAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 & 2)
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.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3358
CRL.P No. 7804 of 2020
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
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.
2. 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.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner has made out any
grounds to allow the petition and to quash the
criminal proceedings initiated against him?"
NC: 2026:KHC:3358
HC-KAR
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for
the following:
REASONS
4. 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:
"§tPÀ ï£À°è zÀ£ÀzÀ ªÀiÁA¸À ©jAiÀiÁ¤ ºÀAagÀĪÀÅzÀÄ EwÛÃZÉUÉ PÉ® ¢£ÀUÀ¼À
»AzÉ £ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ ¸ÀvÀåªÁVzÉ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR ÁVzÉ"
5. 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.
6. 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
NC: 2026:KHC:3358
HC-KAR
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.
7. 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.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Imran
NC: 2026:KHC:3358
HC-KAR
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:
"(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."
9. 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
2025 SCC OnLine SC 678
2024 (4) SCC 156
NC: 2026:KHC:3358
HC-KAR
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.
10. 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,
NC: 2026:KHC:3358
HC-KAR
registration of the FIR is in gross abuse of process of law and
hence the same is liable to be quashed.
11. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(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.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
MKM
CT:VS
