Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against Woman Over Political Taunt About Muslims, Finding No Enmity Promotion Or Religious Insult

On 11 September 2025, a police inspector lodged a complaint alleging that Jyothi had made remarks referring to Muslims, which were recorded and circulated on social media. The complaint was filed against the background of stone-pelting during a Ganesh procession on 7 September, followed by a protest and a town bandh.

Maddur Police registered Crime No. 201/2025 under Sections 196(1)(a) and 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Jyothi petitioned under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings.

The complaint quoted a taunt directed at then Chief Minister Siddaramaiah concerning his support for Muslims.

Section 196(1)(a) BNS requires words or conduct that promote or attempt to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups; mere offensiveness or hurt sentiments are not enough. Section 196(1)(b) additionally requires an act prejudicial to inter-group harmony that disturbs, or is likely to disturb, public tranquillity.

Section 299 BNS requires an insult, or attempted insult, to the religion or religious beliefs of a class, accompanied by a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage that class’s religious feelings.

Under Section 173(3) BNSS, a preliminary enquiry is an available statutory course for qualifying offences, subject to prior permission; Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat supports ordinarily considering that course in speech-related cases, but its omission does not automatically invalidate every FIR.

The Court also applied Article 19(1)(a), subject to Article 19(2), and relied on Amish Devgan v. Union of India and Ramesh v. Union of India for assessing speech objectively, in context, and by reference to the real likelihood and effect of the alleged expression.

Under State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, an FIR must disclose at least the basic facts constituting an offence; the Court cannot supply missing ingredients.

The Court treated the alleged words as an offensive taunt directed at a political figure because of his support for Muslims. The complaint did not allege that the words called on listeners to hate or act against Muslims or another group, nor did it plead facts showing promotion of enmity between groups.

Although the complaint referred to recent communal tension, it did not specify when or where the statement was made, connect it to those events, or allege a reaction or other facts establishing a real likelihood of disturbance; the background could not supply missing statutory ingredients.

For Section 299, the words referred to Muslims as a community but did not identify an insult to Islam or religious beliefs, or facts showing the required deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings.

The Court held that failure to conduct a preliminary enquiry did not, by itself, vitiate the FIR, while observing that the enquiry option should ordinarily be considered in qualifying speech-related cases.

Applying Section 528 BNSS, it concluded that continuation of proceedings on allegations that disclosed neither offence would be an abuse of process.

It allowed the petition and quashed Crime No. 201/2025 and all consequential proceedings pending before the II Additional JMFC, Maddur, insofar as Jyothi was concerned.