Ranveer Singh moves Karnataka High Court to quash FIR over Kantara mimicry

Bollywood actor Ranveer Singh has approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash a first information report (FIR) registered against him over remarks he made during a speech at the 55th International Film Festival of India (IFFI) in Goa. [Ranveer Singh v. State of Karnataka]

The criminal petition challenges an order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru directing investigation under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (magistrate investigation). Pursuant to the order, the High Grounds Police Station registered the FIR for offences under Sections 196 (religious enmity), 299 (religious insult) and 302 (public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The case was mentioned for urgent hearing before Justice M Nagaprasanna, who agreed to list it for hearing on February 24.

In his speech, Singh praised actor Rishab Shetty and referred to his performance in Kantara: Chapter 1. The complainant has alleged that certain expressions used in the speech hurt religious sentiments and promoted enmity between communities.

The petition states that while appreciating Shetty’s acting, Singh referred to a character as a “female ghost” and mimicked Shetty’s performance, following which controversy erupted on social media. It contends that the remarks were taken out of context and that there was no intention to hurt any religion or community.

In his petition, Singh has contended that his remarks were taken out of context and that he had no intention of hurting any religious or cultural sentiments. He has stated that he issued an unconditional apology on social media clarifying that his comments were meant only to appreciate Shetty’s performance and that he respects all cultures and traditions.

The plea argues that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out, since there was no malicious intent, incitement to violence or attempt to create disharmony between communities. It further contends that the magistrate’s order directing investigation suffers from non-application of mind and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

The petition argues that despite this clarification, criminal proceedings have been set in motion without proper application of mind.

It is further contended that the magistrate’s order directing investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS is mechanical and that the complaint does not disclose a cognisable offence warranting registration of an FIR. The plea asserts that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.

Singh was represented by Advocate Manu Prabhakar Kulkarni from Poovayya & Co.