Karnataka HC Quashes SC/ST Act FIR Over “Kokke Korava” TV-Skit Line, Finding No Intent To Humiliate a Community

The complainant alleged that, during a “Comedy Kiladigalu” programme telecast on Zee Kannada on 16 January 2021, a performer used the words “Kokke Korava,” thereby insulting the Korama community.

Ashoknagar Police registered Crime No. 20/2021 for an alleged offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; the investigation was transferred to Subramanyapura Police.

The performer, channel head and other programme personnel petitioned under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and related proceedings.

They argued that the words referred to a fish, were not used to identify or insult the Korama community, and were spoken without intent to humiliate.

The complainant’s counsel did not make submissions at the hearing.

The Court considered the alleged offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, referring in its discussion to Section 3(1)(r), and treated intentional insult or intimidation, with intent to humiliate a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, in a place within public view as necessary to attract the provision.

It relied on *Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate*, (1998) 5 SCC 749, and *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal*, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, for the principles governing quashing where allegations do not disclose an offence or continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

It also relied on *Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand*, (2020) 10 SCC 710, and *Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of U.P.*, (2023) 17 SCC 615, in support of the requirement of intent to humiliate.

The Court found that the complaint identified the words used during a comedy skit but, on the material before it, did not establish that they were used to refer to the complainant’s caste or with an intention to humiliate members of that community.

It accepted the petitioners’ explanation that “Kokke Korava” referred to a hooked fish, noted that the words did not appear in the script and regarded their use as a slip of the tongue.

In the Court’s view, the programme’s broadcast in public did not by itself establish the required caste-related intent.

It therefore concluded that the allegations did not make out the offence and that continuing the prosecution would warrant the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.