Case at a Glance
An office-bearer of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee complained that Amit Malviya and Arnab Goswami spread a false claim that the ‘Istanbul Congress Centre’ in Turkey was a Congress office. An FIR was registered in May 2025 under Sections 192 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The Karnataka High Court, applying the Supreme Court’s tests for speech offences, held that the complaint did not make out the basic ingredients of the offences and that permitting even further investigation would be an abuse of process. It quashed the FIR as against both petitioners.
The complainant, described as a spokesperson and office-bearer of the KPCC, lodged a complaint on 20.05.2025, which was registered as an FIR under Sections 192 and 352 BNS and is pending before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. He alleged that Amit Malviya (accused 1) maliciously propagated the slogan ‘Istanbul Congress Centre in Turkey’ on X, and that the claim was amplified through Republic TV, with which the complaint links Arnab Goswami (accused 2).
According to the petitioners’ account, recorded by the Court, Republic TV aired a lead story on 15.05.2025 on whether the Congress had an office in Turkey; an unrelated picture of an Istanbul building was aired because of a technical glitch, the error was flagged and a corrigendum was issued on 20.05.2025. The petitioners argued that neither the post nor the telecast met the ingredients of the offences. The State contended the petitions were premature and that the final report could be challenged later; the complainant supported the State.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does a complaint alleging that a social media post and a TV broadcast spread a false political claim disclose the ingredients of offences under Sections 192 and 352 BNS (read with the standard for Section 196 BNS), so that investigation must continue?
Why the Court Did Not Let the Investigation Continue
The Court said: “The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter.” It treated Section 196 BNS (promoting enmity between groups) as the touchstone, describing it as “identical to the offences alleged in the case at hand”, and applied the Supreme Court’s speech standards from Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat, (2026) 1 SCC 721, Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 03 SC CK 0016, (2024) 4 SCC 156 and Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, (2021) 03 SC CK 0073, (2021) 15 SCC 35 — including that the effect of words must be judged from the standpoint of reasonable, strong-minded persons and that “The intention has to be judged primarily by the language of the piece of writing”.
Relying principally on Mithun Chakravarty Devidas Shet v. State of Karnataka (SLP (Crl.) No. 14305 of 2024, decided 25.07.2025), where the Supreme Court held that a complaint not disclosing the basic ingredients of the offence could not be allowed to proceed, the Court observed: “The said finding would, on the face of it, become applicable to the cases at hand.” It concluded that “permitting further investigation even, against the petitioners, would become an abuse of the process of law”, invoking the first category in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1990) 11 SC CK 0008, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 — where the allegations, even taken at face value, do not constitute an offence.
What the Court Actually Held
- Speech-related offences must be tested against the standard of reasonable, strong-minded persons, judged primarily from the language used.
- The complaint against Amit Malviya and Arnab Goswami did not make out the basic ingredients of the offences alleged.
- Where the allegations, taken at face value, disclose no offence, even further investigation is an abuse of process (Bhajan Lal, category 1).
- Criminal Petition Nos. 7425 and 7426 of 2025 were allowed and the FIR was quashed qua the petitioners.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It applies the Supreme Court’s recent free-speech line (Imran Pratapgarhi, Javed Ahmad Hajam, Patricia Mukhim) to political content on social media and television.
- It shows that a State’s plea that a petition is ‘premature’ does not bar quashing where the complaint itself discloses no offence.
- It is relevant to the many FIRs filed across parties over political posts and broadcasts.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Citizens & Media
- Criminal law is not a tool to settle disagreements over political claims unless the statutory ingredients are present.
- Prompt correction of errors (here, a corrigendum) is part of the factual record courts may note.
- Quashing is available even at the investigation stage in clear cases.
For Counsel
- Frame quashing petitions around the absence of ingredients of Section 196 BNS-type offences.
- Cite Mithun Chakravarty and Imran Pratapgarhi for the threshold standard.
- Note the Court quashed the FIR only ‘qua the petitioners’.
Key Takeaways
- The FIR over the ‘Istanbul Congress Centre’ claim stands quashed against Amit Malviya and Arnab Goswami.
- Speech offences are judged by their effect on reasonable, strong-minded persons.
- Where no offence is disclosed, investigation itself can be stopped.
- The Court did not rule on the truth of the political claim; it ruled only on the ingredients of the offences.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the FIR against Amit Malviya and Arnab Goswami about?
A KPCC office-bearer alleged they spread a false claim that the Istanbul Congress Centre in Turkey was a Congress office, through a post on X and a Republic TV broadcast. The FIR was under Sections 192 and 352 BNS.
Why did the Karnataka High Court quash it?
It held that the complaint did not make out the basic ingredients of the offences, applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Mithun Chakravarty, and that further investigation would be an abuse of process.
Did the State object?
Yes. The State argued the petitions were filed before any real investigation and that the petitioners could challenge the final report later. The Court did not accept that course.
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court’s ruling adds to a growing body of decisions insisting that criminal prosecutions over speech meet a demanding threshold. The Court confined itself to whether the alleged offences were made out, without commenting on the merits of the underlying political dispute.
Practical takeaway: When an FIR over a post or broadcast does not disclose the ingredients of a speech offence on its face, a quashing petition need not wait for the final report.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com