SRI. G NAGESH ALIAS RAJESHA HIRIMANE vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
Reserved on : 02.09.2026
Pronounced on : 04.11.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 04 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 21084 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI G.NAGESH ALIAS RAJESHA HIRIMANE
S/O GUNDAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
HIRIMANE, MALALI, SHIVAMOGGA
KARNATAKA – 577 425.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.ARUNA SHYAM, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH NAGARA P.S
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
Digitally signed by
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
SHIVAMOGGA SOWLANG ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT,
SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPP-I)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, PRAYING TO I. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.
2891/2025 INCLUDING THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE
DATED: 01-12-2025, FIR, COMPLAINT AND CHARGE SHEET IN CR.
NO. 25/2025 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 353(2) OF BNS, 2023
PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) J.M.F.C
COURT, HOSANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. (PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A, B, C AND D) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY; II. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER WRIT AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF SANCTION
DATED 14-11-2025 IN NO. SMGDC-MAG1/MLWO/43/2025(e-
896951) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F).
- 3 -
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 02.09.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before the Court seeking the following
prayer:
i. "Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the entire
proceedings in C.C.No.2891 of 2025 including the order
taking cognizance dated:01-12-2025, FIR, complaint and
charge sheet in Cr.No.25 of 2025 registered by the
Respondent No.2 for the alleged offence punishable under
Section 353(2) of BNS, 2023 pending on the file of Principal
Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.,) JMFC Court, Hosanagara, Shivamogga
District (produced at Annexure-A, B, C and D) in the interest
of justice and equity.
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ and
quash the impugned order of sanction dated 14.11.2025 in
No.SMGDC-MAG1/MLWO/43/2025(e-896951) passed by
Respondent No.2 and all further proceedings pursuant
thereto (produced at Annexure-F), in the interest of justice
and equity.
iii. Issue any other writ or order and grant such other relief or
reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”
- 4 -
2. Heard Sri M. Aruna Shyam , learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha , learned
State Public Prosecutor-1 appearing for the respondents.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: -
It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner on
20-05-2025 shared a poster depicting one half of the face of
Sri Rahul Gandhi, leader of the opposition and the other half of the
face of an officer wearing the military uniform of Pakistan Army
bearing the nameplate ‘ASIM’ with tagline ‘one agenda’. Based upon
nd
this, a complaint comes to be registered by the 2
respondent/Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga District alleging
that the poster shared by the petitioner was capable of generating
enmity, hatred and ill-will among communities and regional groups.
It is, therefore, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.25 of
2025 for the offences punishable under Section 353(2) of the BNS.
The Police then conduct investigation and file a charge sheet
against the petitioner; the concerned Court takes cognizance of the
offence and registers C.C.No.2891 of 2025. It is this that has driven
the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
- 5 -
4. The learned senior counsel Sri M. Aruna Shyam appearing
for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner is
not the creator of the image; he has only shared it. Even otherwise
it would not make out an offence under Section 353(2) of the BNS.
He would seek to place reliance upon plethora of judgments of the
Apex Court on the issue.
5. Per contra, the learned State Public Prosecutor
Sri B. N. Jagadeesha appearing for the respondents/State would
vehemently refute the submissions in contending that the petitioner
is prima facie guilty of promoting ill-will amongst communities.
Therefore, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full-blown
trial. He would submit that this Court must not lend its protective
hand to the petitioner in the peculiar facts of this case. He would
seek dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
- 6 -
7. The afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass as the
incident itself, against the petitioner, is concerning forwarding of a
social media post. The complaint is by the Deputy Commissioner for
the aforesaid offence in Crime No.25 of 2025. The complaint reads
as follows:
"ವರ ವರ ವರ ವರ
. . . . -428, ,
ಪೕ
ಪ ೕ
ಕು ಾ ಕು ಾ ಎ ಎ ೆ ೆ ನಗರ ನಗರ ೕ ೕ ಾ ೆ ಾ ೆ ಆದ ಆದ ಾನು ಾನು
ಪೕ
ಪೕ
ಕು ಾ ಕು ಾ ಎ ಎ ೆ ೆ ನಗರ ನಗರ ೕ ೕ ಾ ೆ ಾ ೆ ಆದ ಆದ ಾನು ಾನು
.
ಬ!ೆದು"ೊಟ% ಬ!ೆದು"ೊಟ% ಬ!ೆದು"ೊಟ% ಬ!ೆದು"ೊಟ% ವರ ವರ ವರ ವರ
:- 20/05/2025
ಾಂಕ
:-20/05/2025
ಾನು ಈ ನ ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ಾನು ಗುಪ( ಾ)* ಸಂಗ ಹ ೆ ಕತ.ವ/ದ 0
, , ,
ನಗರ ೕ ಾ ಾ 1ಾ/2(ಯ ಮುಂಡ67 ಚಕ ನಗರ ಮಳ :ೈ<ೆ ಮುಂ=ಾದ >ಾ ಮಗಳ0
03-00
ಸಂಚ?ಸುತ( ಗುಪ( ಾ) ಸಂಗ )ಸು(@ಾAಗ ಮ@ಾ/ಹB ಗಂCೆ ಸಮಯದ 0 :ಾ*D@ಾರರು
, ,
ನನ>ೆ *6 ದ Eಾರ1ೇ ೆಂದ!ೆ ೊಸನಗರ =ಾಲೂ0ಕು ನಗರ ೋಬ6 ಮಳ >ಾ ಮದ 1ಾ
!ಾGೇಶ )?ಮ ೆ ಇವರು ತಮJ Kೇ ಬುL <ಾ ಾMಕ Gಾಲ=ಾಣದ ಬಳ"ೆ@ಾರ!ಾOದುA ತಮJ Pೇ
ಬುL PೇQ ನ 0 !ಾGೇR )?ಮ ೆ ಎಂಬ ೆಸ?ನ Pೇ ಬುL PೇQ ಮುSಾಂತರ Tಾರತ @ೇಶದ
UೋಕಸTಾ !ೋಧಪWದ ಮುಖಂಡ!ಾದ Y ೕ !ಾಹುZ >ಾಂ[ಯವರ ಮುಖದ ಅಧ. Tಾಗದ ]ತ
ASIM
ಮತು( Pಾ^<ಾ(ನ @ೇಶದ <ೈನ/ದ ಸಮವಸ_ ಧ? ರುವ ಅ["ಾ? ಎಂಬ ೇ` Pೆ0ೕa
ONE AGENDA
ೊಂರುವ ಅ["ಾ?ಯ ಮುಖದ ಅಧ. Tಾಗದ ]ತ ವನುB Gೊ=ೆಗೂb ಅಂತ
Cಾ/c Uೈd ಅಳವb ರುವ ೕಸ% ಅನುB =ೋ? ದುA ಇದು ಒಂದು ಸಮು@ಾಯ ಮತು( Pಾ @ೇYಕ
ಗುಂಪfಗಳ ನಡು1ೆ 1ೈರತg ಾಗು @ೆgೕಷ ಅಥ1ಾ 1ೈನಮಸjನುB ಉಂಟು ಾಡುವ ?ೕ*ಯ 0
,
ಉ@ೆAೕಶಕಪlವ.ಕ1ಾO ೕ% ಾbದಂ=ೆ ಇದುA ಈ Kೇ ಬುL PೇQ ನ 0 mೇ ಾbದ
, ,
!ಾGೇR )?ಮ ೆ ಮಳ >ಾ ಮ ೊಸನಗರ =ಾಲೂ0ಕು ಈತನ nೕUೆ ಮುಂ ನ "ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ
"ೈ>ೊಳo7ವಂ=ೆ !ಾGೇR )?ಮ ೆ ಎಂಬ Pೇ ಬುL PೇQ pಂದ mೇ ಆOರುವ ೕ% ನ qrೕd
."
mಾa ಪ ಯನುB ಲಗ( 2ಎ ಐ ರವ?>ೆ ವರ ಯನುB pೕbರು=ೆ(ೕ ೆ
- 7 -
The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the
petitioner. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column
No.17 reads as follows:
"17.
"ೇನ "ೇನ "ೇನ "ೇ ನ ಸಂtಪ( ಸಂtಪ( ಸಂtಪ( ಸಂtಪ( <ಾ!ಾಂಶ <ಾ!ಾಂಶ <ಾ!ಾಂಶ <ಾ!ಾಂಶ
:-20/05/2025 03-00
ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ಮ@ಾ/ಹB ಗಂCೆ ಸಮಯದ 0 ಈ @ೋuಾ!ೋಪ ಾ ಪತ ದ
. 14 01
ಕ ಸಂ ರ 0 ಕಂಡ <ಾt ರವರು ಾ ಾ 1ಾ/2(ಯ >ಾ ಮಗಳ0 ಸಂಚ?ಸು=ಾ( ಗುಪ( ಾ)*
. 12 Vivo-
ಸಂಗ ಹ ೆ ಕತ.ವ/ದ 0@ಾAಗ ಈ @ೋuಾ!ೋಪ ಾ ಪತ ದ ಕ ಸಂ ರ 0 ಕಂಡ ಆ!ೋ2ತನು
1907 Facebook " "
v:ೈZ wೕd ನ 0 <ಾ ಾMಕ Gಾಲ=ಾಣ ನ !ಾGೇR )?ಮ ೆ ಎಂಬ
PೇQ pಂದ Tಾರತ @ೇಶದ UೋಕಸTಾ !ೋಧ ಪWದ ಮುಖಂಡ !ಾಹುZ >ಾಂ[ರವರ ಮುಖದ
ASIM
ಅಧ. Tಾಗದ ]ತ ಮತು( Pಾ^<ಾ(ನ @ೇಶದ <ೈನ/ದ ಸಮವಸ_ ಧ? ಎಂಬ ೇ` Pೆ0ೕa
ONE AGENDA
ೊಂರುವ ಅ["ಾ?ಯ ಮುಖದ ಅಧ. Tಾಗದ ]ತ ವನುB Gೊ=ೆಗೂb ಅಂತ
, ,
Cಾ/c Uೈd ಅಳವb ರುವ ]ತ ವನುB ಜನ ಸಮು@ಾಯ Pಾ @ೇYಕ ಗುಂಪfಗಳ ನಡು1ೆ 1ೈರತg
,
@ೆgೕಷ 1ೈ ಮನ jನ Tಾವ ೆಗಳನುB ಉಂಟು ಾಡುವ ಉ@ೆAೕಶ ಂದ Kೇ ಬುL PೇQ ನ 0 ೕ%
.
ಾb ಪ <ಾರ ಾbರುವfದು ತpSೆyಂದ ದೃಡಪ{%ರುತ(@ೆ ಆದA?ಂದ ಆ!ೋ2ತನ ರುದ| ಕಲಂ
353(2) BNS-2023 ."
?ೕ=ಾ/ ತ}ಾ? ದ @ೋuಾ!ೋಪ ಾ ಪತ
Whether the complaint and the charge sheet would make out an
offence is what is required to be considered.
8. The interpretation of Section 353(2) of the BNS or Section
153-A of the earlier regime of the IPC need not detain this court for
long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in IMRAN
1
PRATAPGADHI v. STATE OF GUJARAT , has held as follows:
“.... .... ....
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 678
- 8 -
38. Even while dealing with the performance of an
obligation under sub-section (1) of Section 173, where
the commission of the offence is based on spoken or
written words, the police officer concerned will have to
keep in mind the fundamental rights guaranteed under
Article 19(1)( a ) read with an exception carved out under
clause (2) of Article 19. The reason is that he is under an
obligation to abide by the Constitution and to respect the ideals
under the Constitution. The Constitution is more than 75 years
old. By this time, the police officers ought to have been
sensitised about their duty of abiding by the Constitution and
respecting the ideals of the Constitution. If the police officers
are not aware of these obligations, the State must ensure that
they are educated and sensitised by starting massive training
programmes.
39. In the facts of the case, even without taking recourse
to sub-section (3) of Section 173 BNSS, the information
furnished to the police officer did not attract the offences
punishable under Sections 196, 197, 299 and 302 BNS.
Standard to be applied
40. At this stage, we cannot resist the temptation of
quoting what Bose and Puranik, JJ., authored as the Judges of
the erstwhile Nagpur High Court. In Bhagwati Charan Shukla v.
Provincial Govt., C.P. & Berar [ Bhagwati Charan Shukla v.
Provincial Govt., C.P. & Berar , 1946 SCC OnLine MP 5], in para
67, it is held thus: (SCC OnLine MP)
“67. Viewing the impugned article in that
light we are of opinion, as a matter of fact, that it
is not seditious because its professed aim is to
obtain a change of Government through the ballot
box and not to incite people to a disobedience of
the laws of Government. Some extravagance of
language there is, and there is the usual crude
emotional appeal which is the stock-in-trade of the
demagogue, as well as a blundering and
ineffective attempt to ape the poets . But that is all.
However, it is not enough to find that the writer is
not guilty of sedition because we are concerned
with Section 4 of the Press (Emergency Powers)
Act which travels wider than Section 124-A. We
- 9 -
have therefore further to see whether these words
tend directly or indirectly to incite to sedition, or,
in the words of the Ordinance, whether they are
intended or are likely to produce that effect. We
say deliberately whether the words are likely to
incite to sedition because, as the Federal Court
points out, the formula of words used in Section 4,
as also in the Ordinance, is precisely the formula
used in Section 124-A, therefore to the extent of
the formula the two things are the same. The only
difference is that under the Press Act we have to
consider not only whether there is sedition in fact
but also whether the words tend, directly or
indirectly, to excite to sedition and whether they
are intended or are likely to produce that effect.
We pause to observe that here, as in the case of
reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and as in the
case of putting in fear of hurt in a matter of
assault, we must use the standards of reasonable,
strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not
those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those
who scent danger in every hostile point of view .
Using those standards we hold as a fact that the effects
apprehended by the Crown and required by the section
are not likely to be caused by this article, nor do the
words used, viewed in their proper setting, tend to
cause that effect. The paper is in English. It has a
limited circulation. It is read by those who know and
understand English. It is a party paper and is read
mainly by persons who are politically minded. They are
aware of contemporary political thought and
occurrences. They realise as well as anyone else that
neither His Excellency the Governor nor his advisers
went round shooting and killing persons. They know that
these acts were done by the troops and by the police.
They know that there was a demand for an impartial
investigation and a judicial enquiry. They know that the
demand was refused and they know that the whole
complaint, so far as Government is concerned, lies
there. They are therefore no more likely to attribute to
Government any greater responsibility than Mr
Jamnadas Mehta and other members of the Central
Assembly did. They are as much aware as the writer
that the appeal is for a constitutional change of
Government by constitutional means. They were not, in
our opinion, likely to interpret it otherwise. Therefore, in
our judgment, the article does not tend, directly or
- 10 -
indirectly to sedition, nor is it likely to produce that
result. In our view, the applications should be allowed
and the orders of forfeiture set aside. The costs should,
we think, in each case be paid by the Crown.”
(emphasis supplied)”
(Emphasis supplied)
If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are considered on the
bedrock of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, permitting
further trial in the case at hand would become an abuse of the
process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
O R D E R
(i) Writ Petition is allowed .
(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.2891 of 2025 pending before the
Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C. Court,
Hosanagara, Shivamogga District and the order dated
nd
14-11-2025 passed by the 2 respondent stand
quashed.
Pending application if any, also stand disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
BKP