MANU C vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62244
CRL.P No. 1863 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 1548 of 2021
CRL.P No. 1870 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010091882021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1863 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1548 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1870 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
IN CRL.P No. 1863/2021:
BETWEEN:
MANU C.
S/O LATE CHANDREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SHANTIGRAMA HOBALI
MADENUR, HASSAN-573 225
KARNATAKA.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ASHOKNAGAR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560 025
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62244
CRL.P No. 1863 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 1548 of 2021
CRL.P No. 1870 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010091882021
BENGALURU-560 061
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. NANDISH N M
S/O LATE N S MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT
NO.56/1, DOOR NO.07, JNK LAYOUT
ST
BEL LAYOUT, 1 STAGE
ANJANA NAGARA
BENGALURU-560 091.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 & R2,
SRI. ALLAH BAKASH M., ADVOCATE FOR R3 (ABSENT))
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR DATED 22.01.2021 IN CRIME
NO.20/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 POLICE (TRANSFERRED TO RESPONDENT NO.2 POLICE)
AND IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED 22.01.2021 (ANNEXURE-B)
FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.3, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (CCH-71), CITY COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU
IN RELATION TO OFFENCE P/U/S 3(10) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
1989 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERE TO.
IN CRL.P NO. 1548/2021:
BETWEEN:
RAGHAVENDRA R
S/O LATE SRI RAJASHEKHARA H K
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62244
CRL.P No. 1863 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 1548 of 2021
CRL.P No. 1870 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010091882021
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
BUSINESS HEAD OF
ZEE KANNADA CHANNEL
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.B 110
ARUN PATIOUS APARTMENT
KENCHANAHALLI
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU-560 064
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ASHOKNAGAR POLICE STATION
BENGALURU-560 025
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
2.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU-560 061
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. NANDISH N M
S/O LATE N S MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.56/1
DOOR NO.07, JNK LAYOUT
ST
BEL LAYOUT, 1 STAGE
ANJANA NAGARA
BENGALURU-560 091.
...RESPONDENTS
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62244
CRL.P No. 1863 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 1548 of 2021
CRL.P No. 1870 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010091882021
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 & R2,
SRI. ALLAH BAKASH M., ADVOCATE FOR R3 (ABSENT))
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR DATED 22.01.2021 IN CRIME
NO.20/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE (TRANSFERRED TO RESPONDENT
NO.2 POLICE) AND IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED 22.01.2021
(ANNEXURE-B) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (CCH-71), CITY COURT
COMPLEX, BANGALORE AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
PURSUANT THERETO.
IN CRL.P NO. 1870/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. SATISH H M
S/O MUDDA LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
SENIOR EXECUTIVE PRODUCER OF
ZEE KANNADA CHANNEL
RESIDING AT NO.141,
ST
1 MAIN, CAUVERY NADHI ROAD
BANGALORE SOUTH
GAVIOPURAM EXTENSION
BENGALURU-560 019.
2. KUMARA G
S/O GOPAL SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
ASSOCIATE PRODUCER OF
ZEE KANNADA CHANNEL
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62244
CRL.P No. 1863 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 1548 of 2021
CRL.P No. 1870 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010091882021
RESIDING AT DG KOPPALU VILLAGE
KITTURU POST
BETTADAPURA HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
DODDE GOWDANA KOPPALU
MYSORE-571 617.
3. DILIP KUMAR M
S/O MANJUNATH B
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
AT ZEE KANNADA CHANNEL
ND ND
RESIDING AT NO.1011, 2 MAIN, 2 CROSS
ST ST
BANASHANKARI 1 STAGE, 1 BLOCK
HANUMANTHANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 050.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ASHOKNAGAR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560 025
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU-560 061
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62244
CRL.P No. 1863 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 1548 of 2021
CRL.P No. 1870 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010091882021
3. NANDISH N M
S/O LATE N S MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.56/1, DOOR NO.07,
JNK LAYOUT, BEL LAYOUT
ST
1 STAGE, ANJANA NAGARA
BENGALURU-560 091.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 & R2,
SRI. ALLAH BAKASH M., ADVOCATE FOR R3 (ABSENT))
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED FIR DATED 22.01.2021 IN CRIME NO.20/2021
(ANNEXURE-A) REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
POLICE (TRANSFERRED TO RESPONDENT NO.2 POLICE) AND
IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED 22.01.2021 (ANNEXURE-B)
FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.3, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (CCH-71), CITY COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU, IN RELATION TO OFFENCE P/U/S 3(10) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT, 1989 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT
THERE TO.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62244
CRL.P No. 1863 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 1548 of 2021
CRL.P No. 1870 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010091882021
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the
learned counsel appearing for the State i.e. for R1 and R2.
and though complainant is represented through counsel
and counsel is not pursuing the matter and the same is
noted in the order sheet dated 17.01.2026. Hence matter
is heard in the absence of counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 3 complainant.
2. These petitions are filed by the accused nos.1 to 5
wherein prayer is sought for quashing of registration of
FIR against all the petitioners and FIR is registered based
on the complaint given by complainant i.e. respondent
No.3 and in the complaint, a specific accusation is made
that on 16.01.2021 at 09:00 p.m., in Z TV Kannada
Channel while playing “Comedy Kiladigalu” program” one
of the comedian used the word “ Kokke Korava” and the
same is insulting to a particular community, which has
resulted humiliating the persons belonging to particular
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62244
CRL.P No. 1863 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 1548 of 2021
CRL.P No. 1870 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010091882021
community. Hence prayer is sought in the complaint to
take action against him as well as Z TV Kannada Channel
i.e. Director, Organizers and other persons who have
played the role in the said skit in the Z TV Kannada
Channel. The complaint is marked as Annexure-B,
wherein allegations are also made that, it amounts to
abusing by taking the caste name and it attracts the
offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘SC/ST POA Act’). Hence, case was registered in
Crime No.20/2021 for the offences punishable 3(10) of
SC/ST POA Act. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.1863/2021 is
only accused no.1/Manu, Crl.P.No.1548/2021 is the
channel head and in Crl.P.No.1870/2021 filed by the
accused Nos.3 to 5.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits
that as usual the skit was going on and the same was
earlier it was recorded wherein the word is used as Kokke
Korava and counsel contend that there is no such caste as
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62244
CRL.P No. 1863 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 1548 of 2021
CRL.P No. 1870 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010091882021
Kokke Korava but only word used is Kokke Korava and not
particularly called as Korama and no such word is used
using the word of Korama that he belongs to the Korama
and it is only mentioned as Kokke Korava and Kokke
means hooked and Korava is fish widely available in the
particular district and TV show is demeaning to the
Korama community is alleged by the respondent no.
3/complainant is baseless. When the said dialogue is
viewed in the proper context, it is difficult to reach the
conclusion that it contains any insult to any caste or
community whatsoever. Learned counsel also submits that
the petitioners knowledge that upon learning about the
impugned FIR coming into the knowledge of the channel
and its official’s, the channel on 23.01.2021 decided to
edit (remove the allegedly offensive words from the
episode dated 16.01.2021) and to that effect also re-
telecasted expressing that there was no any such intention
to humiliate any persons belongs to particular community.
Learned counsel also in the subsequent petitions
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62244
CRL.P No. 1863 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 1548 of 2021
CRL.P No. 1870 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010091882021
mentioned the same in the paragraph no.12 and 13 of the
petition, with regard to the subsequently telecasted the
same and produced the CD at Annexure-E and counsel
would submit that the petitioner in Crl.P.No. 1863/2021
only while playing the skit used that word and not with
any intention to humiliate any person and while invoking
the offence under Section 3(10) of SC/ST POA Act there
must be an intentional humiliation that too in a public view
and though it was in the Z TV Kannada Channel
Programme but not having any intention and the owner of
Z TV Kannada Channel Programme is also arrayed as
accused No. 2 and Director of Comedy Kiladigalu Program
is arrayed as accused No.3 and Dialogue Writer Comedy
Kiladigulu Programme is the petition No.2 that is in
Crl.P.No.1870/2021 is arrayed as accused No.4 and
Organizer of the Comedy Kiladigalu program , petitioner
No.3 who has been arrayed as accused No.5, and counsel
would vehemently contend that the Kokke Korama which
is the very basis of the registration of the present FIR, the
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62244
CRL.P No. 1863 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 1548 of 2021
CRL.P No. 1870 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010091882021
same will not attract the ingredients of the offence under
Section 3(10) of SC/ST POA Act, and when there was no
such any intention to humiliate any person, and even not
called only the particular community, but it is mentioned
as Kokke Korava and the same gives different meaning as
explained above, and there cannot be any criminal
prosecution, and only criminal prosecution in a case of if
intentional act was done, and no basic ingredients of
Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST POA Act or any other intentional
insult and intimidation within the meaning of the offence
which have been invoked. Hence counsel would contend
that this Court has to exercise the power under Section
482 of CrPC or otherwise it amounts to an abuse of
process.
4. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the State
would submits that the word Kokke Korama was used in a
skit and the same was recorded earlier and subsequently it
was telecasted and though Kokke Korama is not the
particular caste but it is mentioned as Kokke Korava and
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62244
CRL.P No. 1863 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 1548 of 2021
CRL.P No. 1870 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010091882021
it amounts to an abuse of a person belongs to the
particular community and that too in a public view while
telecasting the said skit and hence matter requires
investigation. The counsel also submits that whether they
were having any intention or not, cannot be considered in
a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and the counsel
also vehemently contend that though these petitions are
filed by them and subsequently telecasted that they were
not having any intention to humiliate, the particular caste
and the same also to be investigated by the Investigating
Officer. Hence it is not a fit case to invoke Section 482.
5. Having heard the counsel appearing for the
petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the
respondent and though complainant filed the complaint
but the counsel who appeared on behalf of him did not
choose to make any submission before this court.
However, in the light of the allegations made in the
complaint, court has to look into the material on record
and having perused the contents of the complaint, which is
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62244
CRL.P No. 1863 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 1548 of 2021
CRL.P No. 1870 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010091882021
marked as Annexure B wherein it is stated that on
16.01.2021 at 09:00 p.m., it was telecasted and the word
is used as Kokke Korama but it is the contention of the
counsel appearing for the petitioner that they were not
having any knowledge about the particular caste and
though complainant belongs to the particular community
of Korama but the word is used as Kokke Korava that
means hooked fish which is Kokke means hooked and
Korama means fish and there was no such any intention to
humiliate and so also counsel would contend that it will not
attract Section 3(10) of SC/ST POA Act and even if any
such hurt by using that word, subsequently it was
telecasted on 07.02.2023 That they were not having any
intention to humiliate any person and to that effect also
specific averments are made in the petition also and it is
also to be noted that that was a skit in a special
programme on the title of Comedy Kiladigalu and the
petitioner in Crl.P.No.1863/2021 had used the said word in
the said skit and the accused No.2 is also a head of the
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62244
CRL.P No. 1863 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 1548 of 2021
CRL.P No. 1870 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010091882021
said channel and others are story writer and script writer
and having perused the document of Annexure-D, no such
script is also found by using the same. When such caste
name is also not found in the script and in a slip of tongue,
the same is used and not having any intention, it does not
attract the provisions of Section 3(10) of SC/ST POA Act
and there must be an intention to humiliate a person
particularly belonging to particular caste and all of them
should know that he belongs to the particular caste, then
only it attracts the same. But this is only a skit which was
telecasted and the same was earlier was recorded and
subsequently it was telecasted. Having considered the
material on record, continuing of the criminal proceeding is
nothing but a serious matter and also Apex Court in the
judgment of Pepsi Foods Ltd., Vs Special Judicial
Magistrate reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749 case
categorically held that or otherwise, if the complaint is on
face value, it doesn't contains any ingredients of the
offence, as well as in the judgment of the Apex Court in
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62244
CRL.P No. 1863 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 1548 of 2021
CRL.P No. 1870 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010091882021
State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajanlal and
Others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 case in
paragraph No.102, a categorical observation is made that
if it is complaint, only with an intention to wreak
vengeance, there cannot be any criminal prosecution.
Keeping the principles laid down in these both judgments
and also under the circumstances, in the case on hand,
when the skit of Comedy Kiladigalu was telecasted and the
very intention of that skit is also to make the people to
laugh, but that doesn't mean to hurt anybody belongs to if
any particular community and while doing the same also
there must be an intention and the same must be in public
view that too with an intention to humiliate a person.
When such being the case in view of the judgment of the
Apex Court in Hitesh Verma Vs State of Uttarakhand
(2020) 10 SCC 710 case reported in 2020 as well as
subsequent judgments of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs
State of U.P., (2023) 17 SCC 615 the Apex Court held
that there must be an intention to humiliation. If such act
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62244
CRL.P No. 1863 of 2021
C/W CRL.P No. 1548 of 2021
CRL.P No. 1870 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010091882021
is done, then it attracts the particular offence and having
considered the material on record, hence it is a fit case to
exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., or
otherwise it amounts to miscarriage of justice.
In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following order:
Petitions are allowed and the FIR dated 22.01.2021
in Crime No.20/2021 registered by Ashoknagar police
station, Bengaluru city is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
AKV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21