Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Karnataka, Single Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum refused to quash criminal proceedings registered in 2020 against a person accused of circulating audio messages on WhatsApp that allegedly criticized the Government, a local MLA, and the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner, charged under Sections 153A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, had sought to invoke the Court’s inherent powers to terminate the case. Observing that the charge sheet and forensic material disclosed prima facie evidence requiring trial, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the plea under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

It was alleged that the petitioner circulated an audio clip in a WhatsApp group criticizing the government, local MLA, and state authorities regarding their handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. The prosecution claimed that the audio contained false information intended to mislead the public and create confusion during the health crisis.

Also Read: Karnataka High Court Quashes Benami Orders, Directs Initiating Officers to Seek Response from Beneficial Owners

Following the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet restricting the allegations to an offence punishable under Section 153 IPC. The petitioner, represented by Advocate Talha Ismail Bengre, moved the High Court seeking quashing of the case under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was argued that even if the charge sheet materials were accepted as true, they did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 153 IPC and that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process.

The petitioner relied on judgments including Aroon Purie v. H.L. Varma, Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss v. State of Tamil Nadu, Anantkumar Dattatreya Hegde v. State of Karnataka, and Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, to support his plea. Conversely, the State, represented by Additional SPP Rashmi Jadhav, argued that the petitioner’s statements were provocative, gave a communal colour to the pandemic response, and were intended to mislead the public. It was also submitted that the petitioner failed to appear before the trial court despite the issuance of a non-bailable warrant.

Justice Magadum observed that “the allegations made, coupled with the translated audio clipping forming part of the charge sheet, prima facie disclose material warranting a full-fledged trial.” The Bench further noted that none of the precedents cited by the petitioner applied to the factual matrix of the present case, as those cases involved statements that did not disclose any offence.

Referring to the statutory context, the Court stated that “Section 153A IPC is attracted where any person, by words spoken or written, or by signs or otherwise, makes an attempt with the intention of promoting enmity or provoking disharmony, which is likely to result in disturbance of public tranquillity.” The order further recorded that the alleged remarks by the petitioner, accusing the MLA of misusing the pandemic situation for unlawful gains and collecting Rs.40,000 per patient, could not be treated as mere criticism of governance.

Justice Magadum remarked that “whether the audio recording released by the petitioner was made recklessly, maliciously, or with total disregard for the prevailing crisis, is a matter that necessarily requires determination in a full-fledged trial.” The Court also took note of the prosecution’s contention that the translated audio contained derogatory references to members of other communities and that such statements were capable of disturbing public peace. Accordingly, it held that the charge sheet materials disclosed a prima facie case sufficient to justify continuation of the proceedings.

Justice Magadum recorded that “on consideration of the material placed on record, this Court is of the prima facie view that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner at this stage.” The Bench found that the translated audio recording, combined with the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report confirming the petitioner’s voice, constituted sufficient prima facie evidence for trial.

Also Read: Non-Resident Company Not Required to Maintain Permanent Office in India for Taxation on Income Arising from Business Connection : Supreme Court Restores ITAT Order Allowing Business Deductions

“This Court is not persuaded to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to interfere with the proceedings.” It noted that the prosecution had demonstrated that the material collected during investigation was adequate to require the petitioner to face trial and that “the contention of the petitioner that the charge sheet materials do not disclose the commission of any offence cannot be accepted at this juncture.”

“The translated audio clipping, forming part of the charge sheet, along with the FSL report obtained by the Investigating Officer confirming the voice of the petitioner, constitute prima facie material warranting trial.” Accordingly, the Bench dismissed the criminal petition, declaring it “devoid of merits,” and directed that all pending applications stand disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. Talha Ismail Bengre, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, Additional State Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Althaf Hussain Yane Althaf Moosa v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:34433
Case Number: Crl.P No. 7272 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum