The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR against 13 petitioners over posters describing a Supreme Court judgment as a denial of justice, holding that the slogans, as described in the complaint, did not attract the ingredients of the alleged offences under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice H.P. Sandesh delivered the order on October 15, 2026, in Criminal Petition No. 671 of 2021. The Court held that expressing dissatisfaction with a judicial decision, in the circumstances of the case, fell within the constitutional protection of freedom of expression and the right to lead a dignified life.
Background
The case arose from an FIR registered as Crime No. 222/2019 at Mangalore South Police Station. According to the complaint, posters bearing slogans describing a Supreme Court judgment as a denial of justice and calling for raising a voice for justice were found on roadside walls. The complaint also referred to the Popular Front of India.
Police registered the case under Sections 153A, 295A and 120B of the IPC, along with Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act, 1951. The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking to quash the FIR and the proceedings arising from it.
Their counsel argued that the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. The State opposed the petition, contending that the posters were displayed in a public place immediately after the Supreme Court judgment and could create disharmony.
Justice Sandesh examined the complaint in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra and Another and the principles laid down in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The Court considered the distinction between expressing disagreement with a judicial decision and making statements that satisfy the legal requirements of offences involving communal disharmony or deliberate and malicious acts.
The order emphasised that the assessment under Section 153A must consider the general impact of the words on a significant number of reasonable people, rather than the possible reaction of a few individuals.
The Court observed:
“Merely because a few individuals may develop hatred or ill will, it will not be sufficient to attract clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 153-A IPC.”
It further considered the slogans used in the posters, noting that they expressed dissatisfaction with the judgment rather than establishing the elements required for the alleged offences.
Referring to the constitutional protection of dissent, the Court stated:
“Having considered the discussion made in detail by the Apex Court and the principles laid down, it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings, as the same is dissent about the judgment and the same is not in the term of creating disharmony.”
The Court also linked its reasoning to Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which protect freedom of speech and expression, subject to constitutional restrictions, and the right to life and personal liberty.
Allowing the criminal petition, the Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR registered in Crime No. 222/2019 against all 13 petitioners.
The order covered the allegations under Sections 153A, 295A and 120B of the IPC and Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act, 1951.
Case Details
- Case Title: Mahammed Hanif and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another
- Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 671 of 2021
- Judge: Justice H.P. Sandesh
- Decision Date: October 15, 2026
