The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere with two FIRs registered against former MLA Rajeev Gowda, observing that the allegations - including abusive language used against a woman public servant - require proper investigation. The court made it clear that at this stage, it cannot halt a criminal probe merely because the accused disputes the charges.
Background of the Case
The case arose from events linked to the promotion of a Kannada film titled “Cult” in Shidlaghatta town. According to the prosecution, banners and flex boards were erected across public places without permission, causing obstruction and inconvenience to the public.
Read also:- Supreme Court Backs NCLAT in Gloster Trademark Dispute, Denies Title Claim to Resolution Applicant
When municipal authorities removed the banners, a heated phone call allegedly followed. The complainant, a woman municipal officer, stated that Rajeev Gowda called her and used abusive and derogatory language. Another complaint was also filed by a local political leader based on the same incident.
Following this, the police registered two FIRs under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including sections dealing with obstructing a public servant, criminal intimidation, and insulting the modesty of a woman.
Gowda approached the High Court seeking quashing of both FIRs under Section 528 of BNSS, arguing that no offence was made out and that the case was politically motivated.
Court’s Observations
Justice M. Nagaprasanna examined the complaint, call transcripts, and legal provisions in detail. The court noted that the language used in the alleged phone conversation could not be brushed aside at the preliminary stage.
“The conversation, if taken at face value, prima facie discloses conduct that may amount to insulting the dignity of a woman,” the court observed.
The judge also pointed out that public servants performing official duties cannot be subjected to intimidation or abuse, especially when the person involved holds or has held public office.
The court further remarked that:
- An FIR need not contain every legal detail.
- Investigation should not be stalled at the threshold.
- Whether the offence ultimately attracts Section 132 or any other provision is a matter for investigation.
Read also:- Notice Issued Before Cognizance Set Aside by Gauhati High Court in Cheque Case
Citing Supreme Court rulings, including Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra, the court reiterated that quashing criminal proceedings at an early stage is an exception, not the rule.
Court’s Decision
Rejecting both petitions, the High Court held that:
- The FIRs disclose prima facie cognizable offences.
- The investigation must be allowed to continue.
- Courts should not interfere unless the complaint is entirely frivolous or malicious.
The court dismissed both criminal petitions and declined to grant any protection from investigation, while clarifying that its observations would not prejudice the final outcome of the case.
Case Title: Rajeev Gowda v. State of Karnataka
Case Numbers: Criminal Petition No. 716/2026 & 721/2026
Decision Date: 22 January 2026
