The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR against Sandeep Kumar, administrator of the X account ‘Karnataka Portfolio’, for reposting a news report about an alleged stalking incident in Puttur. Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the post did not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with statements intended or likely to promote enmity between communities.
The Court also expressed concern over multiple criminal cases arising from the same incident and issued six guidelines for police authorities to prevent mechanical registration of cases and unnecessary arrests.
Background
The matter arose from an incident on July 8, 2026, in Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, where six young men were allegedly involved in threatening a woman with a knife and following her in an SUV. The incident was reportedly captured on CCTV and subsequently covered by media outlets.
Kumar reposted a news report carrying the caption, “Law and Order under Fire: Six held after Hindu woman alleges knife threat in Puttur.”
A complaint alleged that the post contained misinformation and was intended to create communal tension. Puttur Town Police registered Crime No. 88/2026 against Kumar under Section 353(2) of the BNS.
The petitioner argued that he had merely shared information already available in the public domain and had not named or targeted any religious community. He also pointed out that seven cases had reportedly been registered over the same incident. The State opposed the petition, arguing that the necessary procedural safeguards had been followed.
Court’s Observations
After examining the complaint and the reposted content, the Court found that neither identified any religious group nor disclosed the necessary intention to promote communal hatred. It relied on Supreme Court decisions, including Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya and Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra.
The Court observed:
“If this should not be reported in the social media what else can be posted. It is not reported by the petitioner. The petitioner only tweets that ‘law and order under fire’.”
The judge also questioned the registration of successive cases arising from the same incident and stressed that police must examine whether the allegations actually satisfy the legal requirements of the offence before initiating criminal proceedings.
Six Guidelines Issued to Police
To prevent mechanical registration of criminal cases, multiple proceedings over the same incident and arbitrary exercise of police powers, the Court issued six guidelines for jurisdictional police authorities.
1. Examine the Ingredients of the Offence: Police must check whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence. Merely reproducing the wording of a penal provision is not sufficient.
2. Prevent Multiple FIRs: Where complaints arise from the same incident, transaction or substantially identical social media expression, police must check whether a case has already been registered. A fresh FIR should not be registered merely because the complainant is different, unless the allegations disclose a legally distinct occurrence or an independently registrable offence.
3. Conduct Preliminary Inquiry Where Permitted: Police must consider a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) wherever legally permissible. The inquiry must follow statutory conditions, required permissions and prescribed timelines, and must not be used to avoid registering a cognizable offence when the law requires it.
4. Scrutinise Section 353(2) of the BNS: Before invoking this provision, police must examine whether the statement or report satisfies its specific legal requirements, including the necessary intention and its connection with the relevant classes or communities. Mere criticism or disagreement must not be mechanically treated as an offence.
5. Avoid Automatic Arrests: Registration of an FIR must not automatically lead to arrest. Police must comply with Section 35 of the BNSS and Supreme Court rulings in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. Where statutory conditions for arrest are not satisfied, the prescribed notice procedure must be followed.
6. Ensure Institutional Accountability: The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka, must ensure that these principles concerning FIR registration, freedom of expression and safeguards against unnecessary arrests are communicated to all jurisdictional police officers through appropriate administrative instructions.
Court’s Decision
Finding that the allegations did not establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, the Karnataka High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR registered as Crime No. 88/2026 by Puttur Town Police Station.
The Court further directed the state police leadership to ensure strict compliance with the guidelines laid down in the order and the principles established in the relevant judicial precedents.
Case Details
Case Title: Sandeep Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 13010 of 2026
Judge: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Decision Date: October 16, 2026
