Karnataka HC Quashes Second FIR Against MLA Basanagouda Patil Over Same Ramanavami Speech, Citing Earlier Finding That No Offence Was Made Out

The petitioner, a sitting MLA, delivered a speech at a Ramanavami event in Hubballi on 7 April 2025. A complaint alleging offences under Sections 196(1), 299 and 353(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) led to registration of Crime No. 80 of 2025 in Vijayapura.

A second crime, Crime No. 51 of 2025, was registered at Hubballi Town Police Station on the basis of the same speech and incident.

The petitioner challenged the second FIR under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). In an earlier proceeding, the High Court had quashed Crime No. 80 of 2025 arising from the same speech.

Section 528 BNSS empowers the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Section 196 requires the requisite promotion or attempted promotion of enmity or disharmony, assessed in context and by the standards of reasonable, firm-minded persons; mens rea is material.

Section 299 requires deliberate and malicious intent to outrage religious feelings.

The Court also relied on Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, (2021) 15 SCC 35, for the requirement that the alleged speech have the necessary intent and tendency to promote communal hatred or incite violence.

The earlier order concluded that the alleged speech did not satisfy the ingredients of the charged offences.

The impugned FIR concerned the same speech and incident as Crime No. 80 of 2025, rather than a distinct event or a separate alleged act.

The High Court had already considered the speech and held that the allegations did not make out the ingredients of the offences charged; that order had become final.

Because Crime No. 51 of 2025 rested on the same factual basis, the Court held that it could not be sustained after the earlier crime had been quashed.

Pending applications were also disposed of.