- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15445 CRL.P No. 13865 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13865 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. KHAJIABDUL KARIMSAB ANWAR BASHA, S/O LATE KHAZI ABDUL KAREEM SAB, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTWAL NAGARA, 3RD CROSS, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDPASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHITRADURGA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. AJMAL AHMED, S/O LATE SHAIK MAHAMOOD SAHEB, AGD ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT BADA MAKAN, DARGHA ROAD, CHITRADRUGA - 577 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. R. VEERENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.243/2024 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE REGISTRATION OF FIR FOR THE ALLEGED Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15445 CRL.P No. 13865 of 2024 OFFENCE P/U/S 352 OF BNS 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHITRADURGA, AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner challenges the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) for the offences punishable under Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 2. The second respondent lodged the FIR alleging that during a meeting convened at the Muslim Hall situated on Holalakere Road, the petitioner made derogatory remarks concerning the clothing worn by the complainant. It is further alleged that individuals named Ataulla Sharif and Mansur Ahmed were also spoken of in a manner that allegedly diminished their image and dignity, and that the said statements were subsequently circulated and went viral on social media platforms. 3. Sri V. Lakshmi Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that even if the allegations as stated in the FIR are taken at face value, they do not satisfy the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 352 of BNS, 2023. He further submitted that the offence punishable under - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15445 CRL.P No. 13865 of 2024 Section 352 of BNS is a non-cognizable offence. Therefore, in the absence of a prior order from the jurisdictional Magistrate as mandated under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, any investigation initiated by the police is impermissible in law. 4. It is contended that the registration of the FIR is without legal foundation, and consequently, the continuation of the investigation would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 5. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [Criminal Appeal No.2340/2023] 6. In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the allegations in the FIR, on their face, disclose the commission of cognizable offences. It was further contended that the veracity of these allegations is a matter to be determined through investigation and cannot be adjudicated at the threshold. 7. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties have been duly considered. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid (supra) held that mere abuse, rudeness, discourtesy, or - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15445 CRL.P No. 13865 of 2024 insolence does not automatically amount to an intentional insult within the meaning of Section 504 of the IPC, unless such conduct includes the essential element of likely incitement to commit a breach of peace, coupled with the intention to provoke or knowledge of the likelihood of such provocation leading to a breach of peace. 9. In the present case, the alleged utterances by the petitioner have not resulted in any breach of public peace or led to the commission of any cognizable offence. Therefore, the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence under Section 352 of BNS, 2023, are glaringly absent. 10. Moreover, Section 352 of BNS, 2023, being a non-cognizable offence, mandates compliance with Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., which requires the police to obtain prior authorization from the jurisdictional Magistrate before proceeding with an investigation. In the instant case, although the learned Magistrate has endorsed the FIR, there is no judicial order explicitly authorizing the commencement of investigation. Mere endorsement without a reasoned judicial order does not satisfy the statutory requirement under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., and renders the investigation unsustainable in law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15445 CRL.P No. 13865 of 2024 11. Accordingly, the registration of the FIR and the subsequent investigation stand vitiated due to non- compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. In light of the above, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. ORDER i. Accordingly, petition is allowed. ii. The impugned First Information Report in Crime No.243/2024 registered by Chitradurga Police Station is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT: BHK