SRI RAKSHITH SHETTY @ RAKSHITH RAI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13685 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAKSHITH SHETTY ALIAS RAKSHITH RAI
S/O THARANATHA RAI,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT PARARI HOUSE VODILNALA
DAKSHINA KANNADA,
MANGALORE 574217
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAKSHITH KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BELTHANGADY POLICE STATION,
DAKSHINA KANNADA
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU 560001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RANJITH KUMAR.N., HCGP .,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.69/2025 DATED
31.07.2025 REGISTERED BY THE BELTHANGADY POLICE FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 353(1)(d) AND 353(2) OF THE BNS PENDING
BEFORE THE HONBLE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, BELTHANGADY,
D.K AS PER DOCUMENT NO.1 AND 2 AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs;
a) Quash the FIR in Cr.No.69/2025 dated
31.07.2025 registered by the Belthangady
Police for the offence p/u/s 353(1)(d) and
353(2) of the BNS pending before the Honble
Prl.Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Belthangady, D.K as
per document no.1 and 2
b) Pass any other appropriate order/s or suitable
direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case in the
interest of justice and equity.
2. The Head Constable of the respondent police on
31.07.2025 at about 10.00 a.m. when she was
monitoring the social media monitoring cell, she
came across a WhatsApp status of the petitioner
wherein he had posted a status intentionally and a
complaint has been lodged, which reads as under:
4. it is the allegations of police head constable 'Swetha
Kumari' that, on 31.07.2025 at about 10 AM when she was
in social media monitoring cell and enquiring social media
crimes, she came across a WhatsApp status by the
petitioner wherein he had posted a status intentionally
which was bringing hatred, disharmony and disturbing
public peace. wherein he has projected his status in such a
way that, it was instigating public towards different
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
communities/religions by quoting that "you have made a
mistake by killing a Hindu leader, you have started and we
will end it, and further even to talk with Hindus and their
girls and killing cows will scare you and to that extent the
karavali (coastal area) will change". As such, the complaint
gauging the post leading to religious hatred, disturbing
public peace and tranquility, has filed complaint and in
pursuant to the complaint, FIR in crime No.69/2025 was
registered for the offence punishable under section 353 (1)
(b) and 353(2) of BNS. A certified copy of the FIR and
Complaint are produced herewith as Document No.1 & 2.
3. It is on that basis that a complaint came to be filed
by the respondent police alleging that the said post
was leading to religious hatred, disturbing public
peace and tranquility and FIR in Crime No.69/2025
was registered for offences punishable under Section
353 (1)(b) and 353 (2) of the BNS. It is challenging
the same the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
is two fold. Firstly, the status which has been put up
is not a message sent to any particular person nor is
it put up on a social media platform which would be
available to all concerned but would be available only
to the persons in the contact list of the petitioner and
in this regard he relies upon the decision of a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Sri.Venkappa Gowda vs. The State of Karnataka
and anr., [Crl.P No.5909/2024 dated 11.09.2026]
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
more particularly para 5 thereof which is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as the learned HCGP. A perusal of the complaint
averments reveals that the complaint has been lodged by
the party worker of Indian National Congress on the next
day of announcement of result of general elections of Lok
Sabha against the afore-stated WhatsApp status of the
petitioner. A careful reading of the said WhatsApp status
does not disclose any semblance of intention or motive on
the part of the petitioner to cause disorder or incite
people to violence so as to attract the ingredients of
Section 505(2) of IPC. Moreover, the same was posted in
WhatsApp status, which is neither a social media platform
nor any public forum and it is accessible normally to
people who are in his contact list. As such, the primary
ingredients for the offence under Section 505(2) IPC i.e.,
publication or circulation of the of statement are absent.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BILAL AHMED
KALOO V. STATE OF A.P., - (1997) 7 SCC 431 has held as
under:
" 10. Section 153-A was amended by the Criminal and
Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act No. 35 of
1969). It consists of three clauses of which clauses (a)
and (b) alone are material now. By the same Amending
Act sub-section (2) was added to Section 505 of the Penal
Code, 1860. Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 153-A and
Section 505(2) are extracted below:
“153-A. Promoting enmity between different groups on
grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence,
language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance
of harmony.—(1) Whoever—
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by
visible representations or otherwise, promotes or
attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place
of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any
other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
racial, language or regional groups or castes or
communities, or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the
maintenance of harmony between different religious,
racial, language or regional groups or castes or
communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the
public tranquillity, or
(c) *
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both.
*
505. (2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred
or ill will between classes.—Whoever makes, publishes or
circulates any statement or report containing rumour or
alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which
is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion,
race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or
community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious,
racial, language or regional groups or castes or
communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
The common ingredient in both the offences is promoting
feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will between different
religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes
or communities. Section 153-A covers a case where a
person by “words, either spoken or written, or by signs or
by visible representations” promotes or attempts to
promote such feeling. Under Section 505(2), promotion of
such feelings should have been done by making and
publishing or circulating any statement or report
containing rumour or alarming news.
11. This Court has held in Balwant Singh v. State of
Punjab [(1995) 3 SCC 214 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 432] that
mens rea is a necessary ingredient for the offence under
Section 153-A. Mens rea is an equally necessary postulate
for the offence under Section 505(2) also as could be
discerned from the words “with intent to create or
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
promote or which is likely to create or promote” as used
in that sub-section.
12. The main distinction between the two offences is that
while publication of the words or representation is not
necessary under the former, such publication is sine qua
non under Section 505. The words “whoever makes,
publishes or circulates” used in the setting of Section
505(2) cannot be interpreted disjunctively but only as
supplementary to each other. If it is construed
disjunctively, anyone who makes a statement falling
within the meaning of Section 505 would, without
publication or circulation, be liable to conviction. But the
same is the effect with Section 153-A also and then that
section would have been bad for redundancy. The
intention of the legislature in providing two different
sections on the same subject would have been to cover
two different fields of similar colour. The fact that both
sections were included as a package in the same
amending enactment lends further support to the said
construction.
13. Yet another support to the above interpretation can
be gathered from almost similar words used in Section
499 of the Penal Code as “whoever by words … makes or
publishes any imputation …”.
14. In Sunilakhya Chowdhury v. H.M. Jadwet [AIR 1968
Cal 266 : 1968 Cri LJ 736] it has been held that the
words “makes or publishes any imputation” should be
interpreted as words supplementing each other. A maker
of imputation without publication is not liable to be
punished under that section. We are of the view that the
same interpretation is warranted in respect of the words
“makes, publishes or circulates” in Section 505 IPC also.
15. The common feature in both sections being
promotion of feeling of enmity, hatred or ill will between
different” religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups
or castes and communities, it is necessary that at least
two such groups or communities should be involved.
Merely inciting the feeling of one community or group
without any reference to any other community or group
cannot attract either of the two sections.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
16. The result of the said discussion is that the appellant
who has not done anything as against any religious, racial
or linguistic or regional group or community cannot be
held guilty of either the offence under Section 153-A or
under Section 505(2) of 1PC."
The above findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court squarely
apposite to the facts of the instant case. Moreover as
discussed supra, there is no publication or circulation of
the statements by the petitioner and since the same is
posted in the WhatsApp status, the ingredients of Section
of 505(2) IPC does not attract on the face of the
complaint averments. Hence, continuation of proceedings
against the petitioner in Crime No.38/2024 is nothing but
abuse of process of law.
4.1. His second submission is that even if the status
is taken as a whole would not lead to any
hatred being caused between two communities
and would not disturb any public peace or
tranquility and on both the above grounds he
submits that the above petition is required to
be allowed and the criminal proceedings were
required to be quashed.
5. Heard Sri.Rakshith Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.Ranjith Kumar N., learned HCGP
for respondent and perused papers.
6. The following Points arise for consideration:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
(i) Whether the WhatsApp status posted by
the petitioner can be treated as a
statement published or circulated to the
public, having regard to its accessibility?
(ii) Whether the contents of the status, read
as a whole, prima facie disclose the
ingredients of the offences alleged under
Sections 353(1)(b) and 353(2) of the
BNS?
(iii) What Order?
7. This Court answers the above points as follows:
8. Answer to Point No. (i): Whether the WhatsApp
status posted by the petitioner can be treated
as a statement published or circulated to the
public, having regard to its accessibility?
8.1. The submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that a WhatsApp status is accessible
only to persons in the contact list cannot be
accepted as a universal proposition. The
features of WhatsApp Status demonstrate that
its accessibility depends upon the manner in
which the user chooses to share the status and
the privacy settings applicable to it.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
8.2. WhatsApp Status is a feature through which a
user can share text, photographs, videos, voice
notes and other updates with an audience
selected by the user. A status ordinarily
remains visible for 24 hours. WhatsApp also
provides privacy settings which enable the user
to share the status with all contacts, exclude
selected contacts or restrict its visibility to
specific contacts. Thus, the feature permits the
user to control the audience, but does not
necessarily restrict every status to a private
communication between two individuals.
8.3. WhatsApp also permits a user to mention
individuals or groups in a status. Such persons
or groups may view the status and, in certain
circumstances, reshare its contents with their
own audience. A status shared with a group is
visible to its members. These features
demonstrate that the reach of a WhatsApp
status is not determined merely by the fact that
it has been posted as a status. Its accessibility
depends upon the audience selected, the
privacy settings applied and the manner in
which it is shared.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
8.4. Therefore, the mere fact that a message is
posted as a WhatsApp status does not establish
that it is private or that it cannot amount to
publication or circulation. Equally, the mere fact
that a status is posted on WhatsApp does not
automatically make it a public communication.
The accessibility of the particular status must
be determined from the facts and
circumstances of the case.
8.5. In the present case, the respondent police
came across the petitioner's WhatsApp status
while monitoring messages in the social media
monitoring cell. The complaint alleges that the
status contained statements which were
intended to create religious hatred, disturb
public peace and instigate members of one
community against another. The petitioner is
also stated to be a member of several
WhatsApp groups.
8.6. The fact that the respondent police were able to
view the status establishes that the message
was accessible to persons other than the
petitioner. Further, the petitioner's membership
in several WhatsApp groups is a relevant
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
circumstance while examining the reach and
accessibility of the message. These
circumstances do not, by themselves,
conclusively establish the precise audience to
whom the status was available. However, they
are sufficient to reject the petitioner's
contention that a WhatsApp status is
necessarily confined to a private
communication.
8.7. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Sri
Venkappa Gowda v. State of Karnataka
and another , Criminal Petition No.5909/2024,
dated 11.09.2026, was rendered on the facts
and circumstances of that case. The
observation therein that a WhatsApp status is
not a public forum and is ordinarily accessible
to persons in the contact list cannot be
understood as laying down an absolute
proposition that every WhatsApp status is
private or that it can never amount to
publication or circulation.
8.8. The features of WhatsApp Status, including the
ability to select the audience, share updates
with groups, mention persons or groups and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
enable resharing, demonstrate that the reach of
a status may extend beyond a direct
communication between two individuals. The
question whether a particular status was
published or circulated must therefore be
examined with reference to its actual
accessibility and the circumstances in which it
was posted.
8.9. In the present case, the respondent police were
able to view the status, and the petitioner is
stated to be a member of several WhatsApp
groups. In these circumstances, the petitioner's
contention that the message was necessarily
private and incapable of publication or
circulation cannot be accepted at this stage.
8.10. Whether the status was accessible to a wider
audience, whether it was viewed or reshared by
others, require examination during
investigation. At this stage, the features of
WhatsApp Status and the circumstances alleged
in the complaint are sufficient to hold that the
petitioner cannot claim immunity from criminal
proceedings merely because the message was
posted as a WhatsApp status.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
8.11. Accordingly, the petitioner's contention that the
message was not published or circulated
cannot, by itself, constitute a ground for
quashing the FIR.
8.12. Accordingly, this Court answers Point No. (i) by
holding that whether the WhatsApp status
posted by the petitioner amounts to a
statement published or circulated to the public,
having regard to its accessibility, is a matter to
be determined during the course of
investigation. At this stage, the material
available on record does not establish that the
status was a private post inaccessible to the
public. Therefore, the petitioner's contention
that the status was not published or circulated
cannot be accepted as a ground for quashing
the FIR.
9. Answer to Point No. (ii): Whether the contents
of the status, read as a whole, prima facie
disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged
under Sections 353(1)(b) and 353(2) of the
BNS?
9.1. Section 353 of the BNS, 2023 is extracted
hereunder for easy reference:
353. Statements conducing to Public mischief - (1)
Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
false information, rumour, or report, including through
electronic means—
(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any
officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, Navy or Air
Force of India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in
his duty as such; or
(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear
or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public
whereby any person may be induced to commit an
offence against the State or against the public
tranquillity; or
(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any
class or community of persons to commit any offence
against any other class or community,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend
to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(2) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any
statement or report containing false information, rumour
or alarming news, including through electronic means,
with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to
create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of
birth, residence, language, caste or community or any
other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or
ill will between different religious, racial, language or
regional groups or castes or communities, shall be
punished with imprisonment which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section
(2) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged
in the performance of religious worship or religious
ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which
may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
Exception.
It does not amount to an offence, within the meaning of
this section, when the person making, publishing or
circulating any such statement, false information,
rumour or report, has reasonable grounds for believing
that such statement, false information, rumour or report
is true and makes, publishes or circulates it in good faith
and without any such intent as aforesaid.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
9.2. Insofar as WhatsApp status of the petitioner
was as under:-
ೆ
ಾಾಾ
ೆಳ ಂಗ ೕ ಾೆ
ಂದ
ೇಾ ಕು ಾ
910
ಮ ೆ
ೆಳ ಂಗ ೕ ಾೆ
,
ಾನ !ೇ
:
"ಷಯ ರ&' ೆ() ವಂ ಾತನು ತನ, -ಾಟ/0 1ೆ)ೕಟ ನ2 1ಾವ3ಜ5ಕ ೇೆ
,
ಾರಣ-ಾಗುವ ೇ7ೆಗಳನು, ಾ8 ೇ!ೆ ೇ!ೆ ಧಮ3ದ ಜ:ಾಂಗದ ಾಗೂ ಜನ
, ,
ಸಮು=ಾಯಗಳ ನಡು-ೆ ?ಾ@3ಕ ಜ:ಾಂAೕಯ ಆ?ಾರದ Cೕ!ೆ ೆ -ೈ ಮನ /ನ
Eಾವ:ೆಗಳನು, ಉಂಟು ಾ ಸುಳGH ವದಂIJಂದ ಅLಾಯದ MೕIಯನು,
ಹು()ಸುವ ವರOಯನು, "ದು :ಾPನ 1ಾಧನಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ 1ಾ ಾRಕ
Sಾಲ ಾಣದ2 ಪU1ಾರ ಾರುವUದಂದ ಆತನ "ರುದV ಸೂಕ ಾನೂನು ಕWಮ
.
ೈೊಳGHವ ಕು ತು
ೆಳ ಂಗ ೕ ಾೆಯ2 ಮXYಾ ೕ ೆZ ಾ[/ \ೇಬ^
:
ಆA ಕತ3ವ 5ವ3XಸುI ರುವ ೇಾ ಕು ಾ ಆದ :ಾನು ಈ Oನ O:ಾಂಕ
31.07.2025 , 10:00
ರಂದು ೆ7ೆ ಗಂ\ೆ ೆ 1ೋ`ಯ^ @ೕ aಾದ
ಾ5ಟಂb 1ೆ^ ನ 2 C1ೇc ಗಳನು, ಪ `ೕಸುI =ಾdಗ ರ&' ೆ()
:9632652839
e ೈ^ ನಂಬf :ೇದರ -ಾಟ/0 1ೆ)ೕಟ ನ2 1ಾವ3ಜ5ಕ
, ,
ೇೆ ಾರಣ-ಾಗುವ ೇ7ೆಗಳನು, ಾ8 1ಾವ3ಜ5ಕ ೆ MೕI ಹು()
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
'
1ಾವ3ಜ5ಕ :ೆಮPOಯ "ರುದV ಅಪ!ಾಧ-ೆಸಗುವಂ ೆ ಾಡುವ ಉ=ೇಶ ೆh
ಅನುವU ಆಗುವಂ ೆ ಾಗೂ ೇ!ೆ ಸಮು=ಾಯದ "ರುದV ಅಪ!ಾಧ ಾಡುವಂೆ
" , ,
ಪWiೋOಸುವ ಉ=ೆdೕಶ ೊಂO jೇ R ಾOಗYೇ ಕ!ಾವ7 Xಂದೂ
ಾಯ3ಕತ3ನ ಹ ೆ ಾ ತಪUk ಾOW 5ೕವl ಶುರು ಾO :ಾವUಗಳm
.... ,
ಇದನು, ಮುAಸು ೆ ೕ-ೆ ಇನು, ಮುಂದ ೆh Xಂದೂಗಳ ಜನರ ಹI ರ ಾತ:ಾಡಲು
,
Xಂದೂ ೆಣುo ಮಕhಳ Sೊ ೆೆ ಾಾಡಲು ೋಹೆ ಾಡೆh ಊXಸಲು
. ... "
ಭಯಪಡ ೇಕು ಆ ೕIಯ2 ಕ!ಾವ7 ಬದjಾಗುತ =ೆ ಎಚtರ ಎಚtರ ಎಂದು
.
1ೆ)ೕಟ ನು, ಾ8ರುವU=ಾA=ೆ
,
ಆದುದ ಂದ ೇ!ೆ ೇ!ೆ ಧಮ3ದ ಜ:ಾಂಗದ ಾಗೂ ಜನ ಸಮು=ಾಯಗಳ ನಡು-ೆ
?ಾ@3ಕ ಜ:ಾಂAೕಯ ಆ?ಾರದ Cೕ!ೆ ೆ -ೈ ಮನ ನ ಾವ:ೆಗಳನು, ಉಂಟು
ಾ ಸುಳGH ವದಂ ೆJಂದ ಅLಾಯದ MೕIಯನು, ಹು()ಸುವ ವರOಯನು,
"ದು :ಾPನ 1ಾಧನಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ ಸ ಾRಕ Sಾಲ ಾಣದ2 ಪW1ಾರ
: 353(1) ( ), 353 (2) 2023
ಾರುವUದಂದ ಕಲಂ u uಎ[ ಎ1ಾ ಪU ಾರ
.
ಆತನ "ರುದV ಾನೂ:ಾತPಕ ಕWಮ ೈೊಳGHವ!ೇ ವರO "ನಂI
9.3. The complaint alleges that the petitioner posted
the said status with the intention of creating
fear among the public, disturbing public
tranquillity and instigating persons belonging to
one community against another. On the basis
of these allegations, the offences under
Sections 353(1)(b) and 353(2) of the BNS have
been invoked.
9.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon
the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Sri
Venkappa Gowda , wherein the Court
considered a WhatsApp status posted by the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
petitioner therein. The Court held that the
status, in the circumstances of that case, did
not disclose the requisite intention to cause
disorder or incite violence. The Court also
observed that a WhatsApp status was not a
public forum and was ordinarily accessible only
to persons in the contact list of the person
posting it. The said aspect has separately been
considered while answering Point No. (i).
9.5. The Co-ordinate Bench in Venkappa Gowda
also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State
of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 7 SCC 431, while
considering the ingredients of the offences
under Sections 153-A and 505(2) of the Indian
Penal Code.
9.6. In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo , the Hon’ble Supreme
Court explained that the common ingredient of
the said offences is the promotion of feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill will between different
groups or communities. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that mens rea is a necessary
ingredient and that the statutory requirement
of publication or circulation must also be
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
satisfied for an offence under Section 505(2)
IPC.
9.7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that
the words “makes, publishes or circulates” in
Section 505(2) IPC are supplementary to one
another and that a statement made without
publication or circulation would not attract the
said provision. It also held that the offence
requires involvement of at least two groups or
communities and that a statement which
merely incites one group, without reference to
another group, would not attract the provision.
9.8. The principles laid down in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo
are relevant while considering the allegations
under Section 353(2) of the BNS, which
similarly requires a statement or report
containing false information, rumour or
alarming news, made, published or circulated
with the requisite intention or likelihood of
promoting feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will
between different groups or communities on
the grounds specified in the provision.
9.9. The petitioner contends that the WhatsApp
status does not satisfy the requirements of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
publication or circulation and does not disclose
the promotion of enmity between communities.
The question for consideration is whether,
having regard to the allegations in the
complaint and the contents of the status, the
ingredients of the offences alleged are prima
facie disclosed.
9.10. The status must be read as a whole, having
regard to its language, context and the persons
or communities to whom it is directed. Its
meaning cannot be determined by isolating
individual expressions and considering them
independently of the remaining contents.
9.11. At this stage, the Court is not required to
determine whether the petitioner actually
intended to promote enmity or whether the
message ultimately resulted in any disturbance.
The question is whether the allegations, taken
at face value and considered along with the
contents of the message, prima facie disclose
the ingredients of the offence alleged under
Section 353(2) of the BNS. The allegations
cannot, in the circumstances, be held to be
wholly insufficient to attract the said provision.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
9.12. Insofar as Section 353(1)(b) of the BNS is
concerned, the provision requires a statement
made, published or circulated with the intent to
cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm
to the public or a section of the public, whereby
a person may be induced to commit an offence
against the State or public tranquillity.
9.13. The complaint alleges that the status was
posted with the intention of creating fear
among the public, disturbing public tranquillity
and instigating members of one community
against another. The message, read as a whole,
contains statements capable of being
understood as threats of retaliation against
persons belonging to other communities. It
cannot, therefore, be treated merely as an
expression of personal opinion or a private
grievance.
9.14. Whether the petitioner had the requisite
intention, whether the status was published or
circulated in the manner alleged, whether it
was likely to promote enmity between
communities, and whether it was likely to cause
the consequences contemplated under Section
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
353(1)(b) are matters requiring examination on
the basis of the material collected during
investigation.
9.15. At the stage of considering a petition for
quashing, this Court is not required to
undertake a detailed assessment of the
evidence or determine disputed questions of
fact. The power to quash criminal proceedings
is to be exercised where the allegations, even if
accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the
commission of an offence or where continuation
of the proceedings would amount to an abuse
of the process of law.
9.16. In the present case, the complaint sets out the
circumstances in which the respondent police
came across the WhatsApp status, reproduces
its contents and alleges that the petitioner
posted the message with the intention of
creating religious hatred, causing fear and
disturbing public tranquillity. The allegations,
read with the contents of the status, cannot be
said to be wholly insufficient to attract the
provisions invoked in the FIR.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54087
CRL.P No. 13685 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010639142025
9.17. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to hold,
at this stage, that the FIR is liable to be
quashed. The petitioner has not made out a
case for quashing the FIR in Crime No. 69/2025
registered by the Belthangady Police.
10. Answer to Point No. (iii): What Order?
(i) The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(ii) It is made clear that the observations made
herein are confined to the consideration of the
petition for quashing and shall not influence the
investigation or any subsequent proceedings.
The investigating agency shall proceed in
accordance with law.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
PRS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32