The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against an agriculturist accused of offences relating to promoting communal enmity, holding that a private conversation later circulated as an audio message cannot, by itself, satisfy the ingredients of the alleged offences. The Court observed that allowing the investigation to continue in the facts of the case would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
Background of the Case
The case arose from Crime No. 14 of 2024 registered at Hulagur Police Station in Haveri district under Sections 153A, 295A, 120B and 290 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the complaint, the police received a WhatsApp audio recording that had been forwarded by another person. The recording allegedly contained a conversation between two individuals discussing the possibility of creating communal tension in the area, with reference to disturbances that had taken place in 2004. Acting on the forwarded audio, the police registered the FIR.
The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the FIR, arguing that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were completely absent.
Court's Observations
Justice M. Nagaprasanna examined the complaint and noted that it itself described the recording as a conversation between two individuals, which was later recorded and circulated as an audio message.
Referring extensively to the Supreme Court's ruling in Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that offences under Sections 153A and 295A require specific legal ingredients, including an intention to promote disharmony or disturb public tranquillity.
The bench observed,
“This would not become a crime as obtaining under Section 153(A) or 295(A) as is held by the Apex Court in the case of Javed Ahmad Hajam.”
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's reasoning that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) protects lawful expression and that criminal provisions cannot be invoked merely because some individuals may perceive a statement as objectionable.
Decision
Holding that continuation of the investigation would be contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and would amount to a misuse of the criminal process, the High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
The bench observed,
“Permitting investigation even in the case at hand would... lead the investigation to become a gross abuse of the process of law and result in patent injustice.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR in Crime No. 14 of 2024 pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Shiggaon.
Case Details
Case Title: Sayyad Azampeer Khadri v. The State of Karnataka
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 2753 of 2024
Judge: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Decision Date: 3 July 2026
