After 7 Cases Over One Puttur Incident, Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against Social-Media Admin, Directs Police To Check Duplicate Complaints

Respondent No. 2 complained about a post on the “Karnataka Portfolio” social-media account reporting that six youths had allegedly threatened a woman with a knife in Puttur.

The petitioner, an administrator of the account, had reposted the report with the headline “Law and Order under Fire.”

Puttur Town Police registered Crime No. 88 of 2026 against him under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS); the complaint alleged that the post spread misinformation and risked communal tension.

The judgment also records that seven crimes, numbered 82 to 88 of 2026, were registered at the same police station concerning the same incident.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Whether the allegations concerning the petitioner’s repost, taken at face value, disclosed the ingredients of an offence under Section 353(2) of the BNS.

Whether the FIR should be quashed where multiple crimes had been registered concerning the same incident and the complaint did not disclose the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence.

Section 353(2) of the BNS criminalises making, publishing or circulating a statement, report, rumour or alarming news containing false information, with the requisite intent or likelihood of promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between the specified groups or communities.

Applying Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court noted that mens rea is required and that publication is essential under the corresponding former Section 505(2) IPC.

Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand and Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat were relied on for the requirements of inter-group or community impact, the requisite intent, and assessment of speech in its entirety by the standards of reasonable persons.

The Court also applied the quashing principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal where allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence.

Under Section 35 of the BNSS, arrest is not automatic; the police must assess necessity and comply with the statutory safeguards and recording requirements.

The Court further referred to Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and the guidelines in Nalla Balu v. State of Telangana, which the Supreme Court declined to disturb, concerning safeguards against mechanical police action in social-media cases.

The Court found that the complaint and the post did not identify religious or other protected groups between whom the petitioner intended, or was likely, to promote enmity.

The post reported an alleged attack and used the phrase “law and order under fire”; it did not, on the Court’s assessment, generate or promote communal disharmony.

The Court therefore held that the essential ingredients of Section 353(2)—including the requisite intent or likelihood and the inter-group element—were absent.

It also expressed concern that seven crimes had been registered at the same police station over the same incident and emphasised the need to scrutinise the offence’s ingredients and avoid mechanical registration of successive crimes.

It directed that the principles in Satender Kumar Antil, the guidelines in Nalla Balu, and the additional safeguards set out in the judgment be followed, with the Director-General and Inspector-General of Police, Karnataka, responsible for ensuring compliance.