The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Imtiyaz Nuruddin Chinchali in connection with allegations that he made insulting remarks against the Prime Minister after a dispute over barricades placed outside his shop in Athani, Belagavi district. Justice Venkatesh Naik T held that the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences invoked.
Background
According to the prosecution case, the incident allegedly occurred on January 7, 2026, near the petitioner’s shop. The prosecution alleged that Chinchali had placed barricades on the road, causing inconvenience to the public. When the complainant questioned him about the barricades, he allegedly used insulting words against the Prime Minister. A complaint was subsequently lodged on January 11, 2026, leading to registration of Crime No. 29/2026 at Athani Police Station under Sections 285 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The petitioner argued that the complaint did not allege that he had abused or intentionally insulted the complainant. He submitted that an alleged statement concerning the Prime Minister could not, by itself, satisfy the requirements of the offence of intentional insult against the complainant. The State and the complainant opposed the petition, arguing that the allegations disclosed prima facie material and required investigation.
After examining the complaint and material on record, the High Court found that there was no specific allegation that the petitioner had insulted the complainant with an intention to provoke a breach of peace. The Court also noted that the complaint was filed four days after the alleged incident and that the delay had not been properly explained.
The Court observed:
“The allegation against the petitioner is essentially that, when the complainant questioned him regarding the barricades, he made certain statements against the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. There is no specific allegation that the petitioner abused or intentionally insulted the complainant so as to provoke a breach of peace. The allegations are general and omnibus in nature.”
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohammad Wajid and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., observing that mere abuse or rudeness does not amount to intentional insult unless the required intention or knowledge to provoke a breach of peace is established.
Justice Venkatesh Naik T held that the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The criminal petition was accordingly allowed, and the entire proceedings in Crime No. 29/2026 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, were quashed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Imtiyaz Nuruddin Chinchali v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 101720 of 2026
Judge: Justice Venkatesh Naik T
Decision Date: September 18, 2026
