Karnataka High Court quashes FIR against Amit Malviya and Arnab Goswami over Turkey Congress-office claim

The complainant, a Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee office-bearer, alleged that Amit Malviya had falsely associated the Istanbul Congress Centre with the Indian National Congress and that Arnab Goswami’s Republic TV broadcast an unrelated image of an Istanbul building during a story questioning whether Congress had an office in Turkey.

Republic TV issued a corrigendum identifying the image as an inadvertent error caused by a technical glitch.

The police registered Crime No. 132/2025 under Sections 192 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

Malviya and Goswami separately petitioned under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings.

Whether the allegations in the complaint and FIR, taken at face value, disclosed the ingredients of the offences for which the petitioners were charged

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR despite the State’s submission that the investigation had not meaningfully commenced

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which identifies circumstances warranting quashing, including where the allegations, accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence or where the case against the accused is inherently improbable.

It also relied on Imran Prathapghadi v. State of Gujarat, Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, and Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya for principles concerning speech-related offences: the content must be assessed as a whole, the relevant criminal intent must be present, and its likely effect is judged by the standard of reasonable, firm-minded persons.

The judgment additionally relied on Mithun Chakravarty Devidas Shet v. State of Karnataka for the proposition that proceedings may be quashed where the complaint does not disclose the basic ingredients of the alleged offences.

The judgment refers to Section 196 BNS as identical to the offences alleged, although it records the FIR charges as Sections 192 and 352 BNS.

The Court considered the complaint’s allegations alongside the broadcast and the subsequent corrigendum.

It concluded that the alleged statement and broadcast did not establish a prima facie basis for the charged offences and that the corrected, inadvertent display of an unrelated image did not justify continuing the prosecution.

Applying the cited speech cases, the Court found no sufficient basis to infer the required criminal intent or the prohibited effect on public order from the material described.

It rejected the argument that the petitions were premature merely because the investigation had not progressed, holding that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process.