Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Two Over Alleged Social-Media Campaign Using Morphed Photos To Provoke Religious Hostility

Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint alleging an online campaign involving fabricated reports, false allegations, morphed photographs and fake social-media accounts, including material said to portray him as belonging to a particular religious community and to provoke hostility against him.

Belthangady Police registered Crime No. 26/2025 against the petitioners for an alleged offence under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR, arguing that the complaint arose from a dispute between groups associated with the Soujanya murder case and had been filed vindictively because they supported the Dharmasthala temple.

Section 353(2) of the BNS addresses the making, publication or circulation—including by electronic means—of statements, false information, rumours or reports intended, or likely, to promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between groups on specified grounds, or to disturb public tranquillity.

In exercising its quashing jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the Court considered whether the complaint, taken at face value, disclosed a prima facie case requiring investigation; it did not determine the truth of the allegations or the petitioners’ responsibility at that stage.

The Court considered the allegations broader than an exchange of opinions: they included the circulation of allegedly fabricated reports, false accusations and morphed images through multiple accounts, and the alleged portrayal of respondent No. 2 in a way capable of provoking religious or community hostility.

The fact that two groups had exchanged messages did not, by itself, make the alleged conduct lawful, while the claim of vengeance was a defence that could not alone warrant quashing where specific allegations were made.

Responsibility for the accounts and publications, their falsity, and the requisite intention or likelihood under Section 353(2) were matters for investigation.

It dismissed the petition and directed respondent No. 1 to investigate the allegations and counter-allegations made by the petitioners and submit a final inquiry report at the earliest.