Background of the Case
The Karnataka High Court, in G. Nagesh alias Rajesha Hirimane v. State of Karnataka and Another, quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a man for sharing a poster on Facebook depicting Congress leader Rahul Gandhi alongside a Pakistani Army officer.
The case originated from a Facebook post shared on 20 May 2025 through an account bearing the name 'Rajesh Hirimane'. The poster displayed one half of Rahul Gandhi's face alongside one half of the face of a Pakistani Army officer wearing a military uniform with the nameplate 'ASIM'. The image carried the tagline 'ONE AGENDA'.
The Deputy Commissioner of Shivamogga lodged a complaint alleging that the Facebook post was capable of creating enmity, hatred and ill-will between different communities and regional groups.
Registration of Criminal Case
Based on the complaint, Nagar Police registered Crime No. 25/2025 against the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Following the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against him. The jurisdictional Magistrate subsequently took cognizance of the offence on 1 December 2025, and criminal proceedings were registered as C.C. No. 2891/2025 before the JMFC Court at Hosanagara, Shivamogga District.
The petitioner also challenged an order dated 14 November 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Shivamogga.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate M. Aruna Shyam contended that the petitioner was not the creator of the disputed image and had merely shared the poster on Facebook.
It was further argued that even accepting the allegations in the complaint and charge sheet, the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 353(2) of the BNS were not established.
The petitioner therefore sought quashing of the criminal proceedings, including the FIR, charge sheet, order taking cognizance and the Deputy Commissioner's order.
Arguments of the State
The State opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had prima facie committed an offence by promoting ill-will between communities.
The State Public Prosecutor argued that the allegations required examination during a full-fledged trial and that the petitioner should not be granted relief at the preliminary stage.
Legal Provision Involved
Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, deals with statements conducing to public mischief.
The provision criminalises making, publishing or circulating statements or reports containing false information, rumours or alarming news, including through electronic means, with the intention of creating or promoting, or where such conduct is likely to create or promote, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, linguistic or regional groups, castes or communities.
The offence is punishable with imprisonment extending up to three years, or fine, or both.
The provision therefore requires consideration not merely of the existence of a particular statement or publication, but also of its nature and the statutory circumstances in which it is made or circulated.
High Court's Observations and Reasoning
Justice M. Nagaprasanna examined the complaint, charge sheet and the circumstances surrounding the alleged Facebook post to determine whether the prosecution could legally continue.
The Court observed that the case essentially concerned the forwarding of a social media post and considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat (2025).
In that decision, the Supreme Court emphasised that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution must be respected while dealing with criminal allegations arising from spoken or written expression.
The Supreme Court had specifically observed in paragraph 38:
"Even while dealing with the performance of an obligation under sub-section (1) of Section 173, where the commission of the offence is based on spoken or written words, the police officer concerned will have to keep in mind the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) read with an exception carved out under clause (2) of Article 19."
The Supreme Court further emphasised that police officers are constitutionally obligated to respect fundamental rights and that appropriate training and sensitisation must be undertaken to ensure compliance with constitutional principles.
The Karnataka High Court also referred to the principles discussed in Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Govt., C.P. & Berar, concerning the assessment of allegedly objectionable expression.
The decision in that case recognised the importance of assessing allegedly objectionable words in their proper context and applying reasonable standards rather than treating every expression that may cause displeasure or disagreement as legally objectionable.
Applying these principles to the facts before it, the High Court concluded that allowing the criminal prosecution to continue was not justified.
Final Decision
The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition and held that permitting the trial to proceed in the circumstances of the case would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in a miscarriage of justice.
The Court accordingly:
1. Quashed the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 2891/2025 pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC Court, Hosanagara, Shivamogga District.
2. Quashed the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 14 November 2025.
The writ petition was allowed, and pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Legal Significance
The decision reiterates that criminal proceedings arising from social media posts and other forms of expression must be examined in the light of the constitutional protection guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
The mere fact that an expression or social media publication is considered objectionable cannot, by itself, justify criminal prosecution. The allegations must be examined against the essential ingredients of the offence alleged, keeping in view the nature and context of the expression.
The judgment also reinforces the responsibility of investigating authorities to remain conscious of constitutional freedoms while dealing with complaints involving speech and expression.
Importantly, the decision is based on the particular facts and material considered by the High Court. It does not establish that every act of sharing objectionable content on social media is immune from criminal prosecution.
Case Details
Case Name: G. Nagesh alias Rajesha Hirimane v. State of Karnataka and Another
Court: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru
Date of Decision: 4 November 2026
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 21084 of 2026 (GM-RES)
Coram/Judge: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
