The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Suvarna News anchor Sri Ajit Hanumakkanavar arising from a 2018 television discussion in which remarks concerning the lifestyle of Prophet Mohammed were alleged to have hurt religious sentiments and promoted communal disharmony.
Justice Ravi V Hosmani, in an order dated August 4, 2026, allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings in Crime No. 12/2019 registered by Tunga Nagar Police Station, Shivamogga, under Sections 153A, 34, 295A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
Background of the Case
The proceedings arose from a television programme aired on December 27, 2018, on Suvarna News 24/7. According to the complaint, Hanumakkanavar, who was anchoring the programme, made statements while discussing controversial remarks attributed to Prof. Bhagwan in his book Why Ram Mandir is Not Needed.
The complainant alleged that the statements concerning Prophet Mohammed were disrespectful, hurt religious sentiments and could create hostility between followers of different faiths. On that basis, the police registered the case under Sections 153A, 34, 295A and 505(2) IPC.
Hanumakkanavar approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. His counsel pointed out that another complaint arising from the same television programme had already been quashed by the High Court in an earlier proceeding.Court’s Observation
Justice Hosmani noted that the earlier proceedings concerned the same incident and similar allegations. In that case, the High Court had found that the anchor's questions during the panel discussion did not show the required intention to incite any particular community, caste or religion.
The earlier judgment had also held that an omnibus statement made to enable panelists to express different views would not, by itself, attract Sections 153A or 505(2) IPC. The Court had stressed that the programme did not specifically refer to any particular community.
The Court further examined Section 295A IPC, which requires a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings. Justice Hosmani observed that the earlier findings regarding absence of the necessary intention also applied to the allegation under Section 295A.“The element of mens rea is doubly qualified” under Section 295A, the Court noted, referring to the requirement of deliberate and malicious intention. It therefore concluded that registration of the impugned FIR could not be sustained.
Decision
The High Court also considered the issue of multiple complaints arising from the same incident and referred to Supreme Court decisions including T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh concerning repeated complaints relating to the same occurrence.
Justice Ravi V Hosmani consequently allowed the petition and ordered that the proceedings in Crime No. 12/2019 pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC-3, Shivamogga, for offences under Sections 153A, 34, 295A and 505(2) IPC, stand quashed insofar as they concerned Ajit Hanumakkanavar.
-300x169.webp)