Karnataka HC quashes case against NRI student over offensive Instagram post on actor Puneeth Rajkumar

The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed criminal proceedings against a non-resident Indian (NRI) student booked for an Instagram post mocking Kannada film actor Puneeth Rajkumar shortly after his death [Ritvik S Sharma v State of Karnataka]..Justice Suraj Govindaraj today strongly criticised the student for his conduct but agreed to take a lenient view and quash the case, considering the adverse effects the criminal proceedings would have on the student's future career prospects..Is this a kind of post you can put up after his death? It is rather sad that such a post has been put up immediately after the expiry of a well-respected film actor.Karnataka High Court.The student was booked in 2021 for uploading an offensive Instagram post after a temporary liquor sale ban was imposed in Bengaluru. The temporary liquor ban followed the death of Puneeth Rajkumar on October 29, 2021.The student's instagram post is reported to have contained an image of a Kingfisher beer bottle with a quote, "Rajkumar (C*NT) can't stop us."The judge today strongly admonished the student's online conduct."Is this a kind of post you can put up after his death? Let the trial happen and let it be decided," the Court initially told the student's counsel.The Court was particularly critical of the timing of the social media post."It is not only the statement which is made which is required to be considered but also the timing and context in which the statement is made which is required to be taken into consideration. It is rather sad that such a post has been put up immediately after the expiry of a well-respected film actor," the Court said..The student's counsel, meanwhile, contended that the post did not refer to the Kannada film actor but could have been referred to any body since the name 'Rajkumar' was a generic name. It was also submitted that the post was in fact made by the student's friends. Justice Govindaraj was not persuaded by these submissions. "You want us to give an observation? What is the word that you have used? He is the son of Rajkumar, who has expired, and you use this word. What does that mean? You're not saying it out loud, it is not a generic name to be posted on social media. If your client thinks it is a generic word, sorry," he said. .The counsel then urged the Court for leniency. He submitted that the petitioner-student had been born and brought up in London and had shifted to India only recently. He added that the petitioner was currently pursuing a bachelor's in economics in India. Allowing criminal proceedings to proceed against him would adversely affect his career, the petitioner's counsel said. In view of these submissions, the Court ultimately allowed the student's plea to quash the case, after warning him."This Court is of the opinion that leniency would have to be shown to the petitioner by warning him and directing the counsel for the petitioner to advise him accordingly and as such the Court passes the following order. Petition is allowed. Quashed with the above observation," it ordered..Advocate Padmavathi N appeared for the State.