Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Youth Booked Under IPC Section 153 Over Cow Shooting Video Forwarded In WhatsApp Group
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar has quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Ponnampet, Kodagu, against an individual charged under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court held that the allegations leveled and materials on record failed to constitute the necessary ingredients of the offence. The Court further noted that the initiation and continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Through its order dated 22 July 2025, the Court directed that all proceedings arising out of Crime No.28/2024, including the FIR dated 08.05.2024, complaint dated 08.05.2024, and charge sheet dated 12.09.2024, be quashed. The matter related to an FIR registered suo-motu by the respondent police, alleging circulation of a video and associated comments that purportedly offended communal sentiments. However, upon examining the content and conduct of the accused, the Court concluded that the statutory threshold required to prosecute under Section 153 IPC was not satisfied. As a result, the Court allowed the criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (noted as filed under Section 528 BNSS) and set aside the proceedings in the interest of justice.
The petitioner in the case was a 29-year-old resident of Beeruga Village, Kodagu District. The respondent was the State of Karnataka, represented by the Srimangala Police Station through the State Public Prosecutor. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (styled as filed under Section 528 BNSS) was filed seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 1427/2024 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Ponnampet, Kodagu.
The background of the case reveals that on 08.05.2024, a suo-motu complaint was filed by a police officer from Srimangala Police Station, leading to the registration of Crime No.28/2024 under Section 505(2) IPC. The allegations stemmed from a WhatsApp video forwarded by the petitioner. The police complaint stated that a video was circulated in a group, showing a person shooting a cow, followed by a caption stating that such acts were incorrect. The video was allegedly forwarded by the petitioner with accompanying messages that were considered provocative.
After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet dated 12.09.2024, deleting Section 505(2) IPC and instead invoking Section 153 IPC. This charge sheet was submitted as part of the criminal proceedings before the JMFC Court, which registered the matter as C.C. No.1427/2024.
The petitioner sought quashing of the complaint, FIR, and charge sheet on the grounds that none of the allegations made in the complaint or findings in the investigation met the ingredients required for constituting an offence under Section 153 IPC. It was also contended that the continuation of the proceedings would result in an abuse of the process of the court.
The respondent, represented by the High Court Government Pleader, opposed the petition and relied on the complaint and charge sheet to support the continuation of proceedings.
Upon hearing both parties and examining the record, the Court observed that the material on record, including the contents of the forwarded video and the petitioner’s conduct thereafter, did not justify the invocation of Section 153 IPC.
The Court observed that "Perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent filed a suo-motu complaint registered as an FIR in Cr.No.28/2024 dated 08.05.2024 against the petitioner for alleged offence punishable under Section 505(2) of IPC."
It further recorded that "After investigation, the respondent filed a charge sheet for offence punishable under Section 153 of IPC by deleting/dropping offence under Section 505(2) of IPC and which is currently pending in C.C.No.1427/2024 before the Trial Court."
In reference to the complaint, the Court included the translated narrative stating that the petitioner had forwarded a video showing someone shooting a cow with a statement suggesting such actions were wrong, but there was no indication of malicious intent or unlawful provocation.
The charge sheet summary indicated that the petitioner forwarded a video and comments in a WhatsApp group but later deleted the video and exited the group. The Court remarked that "there is no other material to establish the petitioner could be incriminated for the alleged offences."
Quoting Section 153 IPC, the Court noted: "Whoever malignantly, or wantonly, by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed..."
The Court examined whether the ingredients of Section 153 IPC were met and concluded they were absent. Citing Raju Thomas @ John Thomas v. State of Kerala, the Court stated:
"To constitute an offence under Section 153 of the IPC, the essential ingredients thereof have to be made out. The ‘act’ imputed against the accused is illegal, he has done such act malignantly or wantonly, and, he has given provocation to any person intending or knowing that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting..."
It recorded that the act of forwarding a video was not unlawful, nor was it shown to be done with malignant intent or recklessness. The Court noted: "Even if that is accepted on its face value, it cannot be viewed as an unlawful act done by him out of extreme malevolence or enmity or recklessness... It cannot be stated that tearing of the notice board containing defamatory statement against him and that too exhibited in a public place was an act done by him with intent to provoke any person to commit the offence of rioting."
The Court distinguished the case from Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, noting:
"There was an aggrieved person in the case therein. But, there is none in the case at hand. Therefore, the mandate under Section 199 of the CrPC which creates a bar for institution of defamation except by an aggrieved person will enure to the benefit of the petitioner..."
It further relied on Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan v. Ram Gopal Poddar, observing:
"...where the allegations themselves are so absurd that no reasonable man would accept the same, the High Court could not have thrown its arms in the air and expressed its inability to do anything in the matter. Section 482 CrPC is a guarantee against injustice..."
The Court stated that continuing the proceedings would lead to miscarriage of justice.
In its concluding part, the Court passed the following order: "The petition is hereby allowed. The entire proceeding in C.C.No.1427/2024 which is pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Ponnampet, Kodagu for alleged offences punishable under Section 153 of IPC including the FIR dated 08.05.2024, complaint dated 08.05.2024 and charge sheet dated 12.09.2024 in Cr.No.28/2024 registered by respondent/police are hereby quashed."
The Court recorded that the charge sheet revealed that the petitioner had exited the WhatsApp group and removed the video, indicating the absence of criminal intent or continuation of unlawful conduct. Based on this, the Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and concluded that the criminal prosecution lacked legal foundation.
It held: "In the light of the afore-narrated facts and the judgments afore-quoted, permitting further proceedings would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice."
Accordingly, the criminal petition was allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner were set aside.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Nishanth S.K, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Channappa Erappa, High Court Government Pleader for R1
Case Title: Sri Vivek Kariappa C.K v. State of Karnataka
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:27747
Case Number: CRL.P No. 9436 of 2025
Bench: Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar
