Karnataka HC refuses to quash FIR over offensive images of Hindu deities, politicians on WhatsApp group

The Karnataka High Court recently rejected a petition seeking to quash a criminal case filed against a man accused of circulating offensive images of Hindu deities and certain politicians on a WhatsApp group titled 'Bajarangi Go Kallaru' [Sirajuddin v. State of Karnataka].

Justice M Nagaprasanna found that there was a prima facie case made out against the accused petitioner under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which punishes the offence of outraging religious feelings.

"The State has produced entire investigation material before this Court, a perusal of which contains depictions of Hindu deities in an extraordinarily obscene, demeaning and profane manner. The content is such that reproduction thereof, in a judicial order, would itself be inappropriate. Suffice it to observe that the material on its face has the tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony," the Court noted.

It added that whether the accused actually intended to engage in such criminal activities is for the trial court to decide.

Therefore, the Court was not inclined to quash the case altogether before the matter was properly investigated and examined by a trial court.

The Court also took note of concerns that the police had not arrested all of the administrators of the group. However, such factors cannot be the basis to quash the case against the petitioner, Justice Nagaprasanna held.

"While this Court notes with some concern that the Investigating Officer appears to have blissfully ignored to proceed uniformly against all administrators of the group. However, if the investigation leads to any member being actively involved in permitting circulation of such pictures, they must be brought to book. At this investigative stage, any further observation at the hands of this Court would be unnecessary," the ruling said.

The Court further underscored that provocative remarks would not be protected under the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, even if they did not actually lead to public disorder.

"In cases where insult does not lead to disorder, if the act has the propensity to disrupt public order, it squarely falls within the scope of reasonable restriction of free speech. Therefore, in the garb of free speech anything and everything cannot be countenanced," the January 30 order said.

The case was tied to a criminal case registered in 2021. The complainant alleged that he had received a link from an unknown source to join a WhatsApp group named “Bajarangi Go Kallaru", with 6 administrators and nearly 250 participants.

He alleged that highly offensive images of Hindu deities and some politicians were being repeatedly circulated on this group to outrage religious feelings.

A criminal case was registered in the matter under Section 295A of the IPC and Section 67 (transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act, 2008.

One, Sirajuddin, was among those arrested in connection with this case in February 2021. In 2024, he filed a plea before the High Court questioning the continuing investigation against him and prayed that the case against him be quashed.

Among other arguments, his counsel contended that a prior State sanction was necessary before investigating a case involving Section 295A, IPC. The Court rejected this argument, noting that such a sanction is only required when the matter comes before the trial court, and not at the stage of investigation by the police.

It proceeded to dismiss the petition to quash the case itself, after issuing directions to expedite the investigation.

"Since the crime is of the year 2021, the Investigating Officer shall now conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible, without brooking any delay, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order", the Court said.

Advocate T Ramesh appeared for the petitioner.

Additional Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha appeared for the State.

Advocate Rakshith Kumar represented the complainant.

[Read Order]