Karnataka HC Quashes BNS 353(2) Case Against Man For Sharing Rahul Gandhi–Pakistan Army “One Agenda” Poster

In brief

The question

Whether the complaint and charge sheet disclosed an offence under Section 353(2) of the BNS on the facts alleged

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition.

It also directed

It quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 2891 of 2025 before the JMFC, Hosanagara, and the Deputy Commissioner’s sanction order dated 14 November 2025.

01Facts

On 20 May 2025, the petitioner shared a social-media poster combining part of Rahul Gandhi’s face with part of the face of a Pakistani Army officer, accompanied by the tagline “One Agenda.”

pp. 4–5, 7

The Deputy Commissioner complained that the post was intended to generate enmity and ill-will among communities and regional groups.

pp. 4–5, 7

Police registered Crime No. 25 of 2025 under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), investigated, and filed a charge sheet.

pp. 4–5, 7

The Magistrate took cognizance and registered C.C. No. 2891 of 2025.

pp. 4–5, 7

The petitioner sought to quash the criminal proceedings and the Deputy Commissioner’s sanction order dated 14 November 2025.

pp. 4–5, 7

02Issues

i.Whether the complaint and charge sheet disclosed an offence under Section 353(2) of the BNS on the facts alleged

pp. 7–8

ii.Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings and the sanction order should be quashed as an abuse of process

pp. 8–10

03Law Applied

The Court considered Section 353(2) of the BNS, the provision under which the petitioner was charged, and the constitutional protection of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), subject to the restrictions in Article 19(2).

pp. 8–10

Relying on Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 678, the Court noted that police must assess speech-based allegations consistently with those constitutional protections and that prosecution should not proceed where the alleged information does not attract the charged offences.

pp. 8–10

The Court also referred to the standard in Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Govt., C.P. & Berar, 1946 SCC OnLine MP 5: the likely effect of expression is to be assessed by reference to reasonable, firm-minded persons, rather than those who are weak or unduly apprehensive.

pp. 8–10

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528 Section 173

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 353 Section 196 Section 197 Section 299 Section 302

04Reasoning

The Court treated the case as concerning the petitioner’s forwarding of a social-media post and considered whether the complaint and charge-sheet material supported the alleged offence.

pp. 7–10

Applying the principles in Imran Pratapgadhi and the reasonable-person standard quoted from Bhagwati Charan Shukla, it concluded that allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of process and a miscarriage of justice.

pp. 7–10

The Court did not set out a separate, element-by-element analysis of Section 353(2).

pp. 7–10