Sri G.Nagesh Alias Rajesha Hirimane vs The State Of Karnataka & Anr.

i.

"Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.2891 of 2025 including the order taking cognizance dated:01-12-2025, FIR, complaint and charge sheet in Cr.No.25 of 2025 registered by the Respondent No.2 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 353(2) of BNS, 2023 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.,) JMFC Court, Hosanagara, Shivamogga District (produced at Annexure-A, B, C and D) in the interest of justice and equity.

ii.

Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ and quash the impugned order of sanction dated 14.11.2025 in No.SMGDC-MAG1/MLWO/43/2025(e-896951) passed by Respondent No.2 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto (produced at Annexure-F), in the interest of justice and equity.

iii.

Issue any other writ or order and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

“ವರದಿ

ಪ್ರವೀಣ್ ಕುಮಾರ್ ಬಿ.ಎಸ್. ಸಿ.ಹೆಚ್.ಸಿ-428, ನಗರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆ, ಆದ ನಾನು ಬರೆಯಕೊಟ್ಟ ವರದಿ.

ದಿನಾಂಕ :- 20/05/2025

ನಾನು ಈ ದಿನ ದಿನಾಂಕ:-20/05/2025 ರಂದು ನಾನು ಗುಪ್ತ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸಂಗ್ರಹಣೆ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಗರ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣಾ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯ ಮುಂಡಳಿ, ಚಕ್ರನಗರ, ಮಳಲಿ, ಬೈಸೆ ಮುಂತಾದ ಗ್ರಾಮಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಚರಿಸುತ್ತ ಗುಪ್ತ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಗ ಮಧ್ಯಾಹ್ನ 03-00 ಗಂಟೆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಾತ್ತೀದಾರರು ನನಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ ವಿಚಾರವೇನೆಂದರೆ ಹೊಸನಗರ ತಾಲ್ಲೂಕು, ನಗರ ಹೋಬಳಿ, ಮಳಲಿ ಗ್ರಾಮದ ವಾಸಿ ರಾಜೇಶ ಹಿರಿಮನೆ ಇವರು ತಮ್ಮ ಫೇಸ್ ಬುಕ್ ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ ಜಾಲತಾಣದ ಬಳಕೆದಾರರಾಗಿದ್ದು ತಮ್ಮ ಫೇಸ್ ಬುಕ್ ಪೇಜ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ರಾಜೇಶ್ ಹಿರಿಮನೆ ಎಂಬ ಹೆಸರಿನ ಫೇಸ್ ಬುಕ್ ಪೇಜ್ ಮುಖಾಂತರ ಭಾರತ ದೇಶದ ಲೋಕಸಭಾ ವಿರೋಧಪಕ್ಷದ ಮುಖಂಡರಾದ ಶ್ರೀ ರಾಹುಲ್ ಗಾಂಧಿಯವರ ಮುಖದ ಅರ್ಧ ಭಾಗದ ಚಿತ್ರ ಮತ್ತು ಪಾಕಿಸ್ತಾನ ದೇಶದ ಸೈನ್ಯದ ಸಮವಸ್ತ್ರ ಧರಿಸಿರುವ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿ ASIM ಎಂಬ ನೇಮ್ ಫ್ಲೇಟ್ ಹೊಂದಿರುವ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಯ ಮುಖದ ಅರ್ಧ ಭಾಗದ ಚಿತ್ರವನ್ನು ಜೊತೆಗೂಡಿಸಿ ONE AGENDA ಅಂತ ಟ್ಯಾಗ್ ಲೈನ್ ಅಳವಡಿಸಿರುವ ಫೋನ್ಸರ್ ಅನ್ನು ತೋರಿಸಿದ್ದು ಇದು ಒಂದು ಸಮುದಾಯ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಾದೇಶಿಕ ಗುಂಪುಗಳ ನಡುವೆ ವೈರತ್ವ ಹಾಗು ದ್ವೇಷ ಅಥವಾ ವೈನಮಸ್ಸನ್ನು ಉಂಟು ಮಾಡುವ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಉದ್ದೇಶಕಪೂರ್ವಕವಾಗಿ ಫೋನ್ಸ್ ಮಾಡಿದಂತೆ ಇದ್ದು, ಈ ಫೇಸ್ ಬುಕ್ ಪೇಜ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಶೇರ್ ಮಾಡಿದ ರಾಜೇಶ್ ಹಿರಿಮನೆ, ಮಳಲಿ ಗ್ರಾಮ, ಹೊಸನಗರ ತಾಲ್ಲೂಕು ಈತನ ಮೇಲೆ ಮುಂದಿನ ಕಾನೂನು ಕ್ರಮ ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳುವಂತೆ ರಾಜೇಶ್ ಹಿರಿಮನೆ ಎಂಬ ಫೇಸ್ ಬುಕ್ ಪೇಜ್ ನಿಂದ ಶೇರ್ ಆಗಿರುವ ಫೋನ್ಸ್ ನ ಸ್ಕ್ರೀನ್ ಶಾಟ್ ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು ಲಗತ್ತಿಸಿ ಪಿಎಸ್‌ಐ ರವರಿಗೆ ವರದಿಯನ್ನು ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.”

'17. ಕೇಸಿನ ಸಂಕ್ಷಿಪ್ತ ಸಾರಾಂಶ

ದಿನಾಂಕ:-20/05/2025 ರಂದು ಮಧ್ಯಾಹ್ನ 03-00 ಗಂಟೆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ದೋಷಾರೋಪಣಾ ಪತ್ರದ ಕ್ರ.ಸಂ 14 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಕಂಡ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ 01 ರವರು ರಾಣಾ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯ ಗ್ರಾಮಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಚರಿಸುತ್ತಾ ಗುಪ್ತ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸಂಗ್ರಹಣೆ ಕರ್ತವ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಾಗ ಈ ದೋಷಾರೋಪಣಾ ಪತ್ರದ ಕ್ರ.ಸಂ 12 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಕಂಡ ಆರೋಪಿತನು Vivo-1907 ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಫೋನ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ ಜಾಲತಾಣ Facebook ನ "ರಾಜೇಶ್ ಹಿರಿಮನ್" ಎಂಬ ಪೇಜ್ ನಿಂದ ಭಾರತ ದೇಶದ ಲೋಕಸಭಾ ವಿರೋಧ ಪಕ್ಷದ ಮುಖಂಡ ರಾಹುಲ್ ಗಾಂಧಿರವರ ಮುಖದ ಅರ್ಧ ಭಾಗದ ಚಿತ್ರ ಮತ್ತು ಪಾಕಿಸ್ತಾನ ದೇಶದ ಸೈನ್ಯದ ಸಮವಸ್ತ್ರ ಧರಿಸಿ ASIM ಎಂಬ ನೇಮ್ ಪ್ಲೇಟ್ ಹೊಂದಿರುವ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಯ ಮುಖದ ಅರ್ಧ ಭಾಗದ ಚಿತ್ರವನ್ನು ಜೊತೆಗೂಡಿಸಿ ONE AGENDA ಅಂತ ಟ್ಯಾಗ್ ಲೈನ್ ಅಳವಡಿಸಿರುವ ಚಿತ್ರವನ್ನು ಜನ ಸಮುದಾಯ, ಪ್ರಾದೇಶಿಕ ಗುಂಪುಗಳ ನಡುವೆ ವೈರತ್ವ, ದ್ವೇಷ, ವೈ ಮನಸ್ಸಿನ ಭಾವನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಉಂಟು ಮಾಡುವ ಉದ್ದೇಶದಿಂದ ಫೇಸ್ ಬುಕ್ ಪೇಜ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಫೋನ್ಸ್ ಮಾಡಿ ಪ್ರಸಾರ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದು ತನಿಖೆಯಿಂದ ದೃಢಪಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಆರೋಪಿತನ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಕಲಂ 353(2) BNS-2023 ರೀತ್ಯಾ ತಯಾರಿಸಿದ ದೋಷಾರೋಪಣಾ ಪತ್ರ."

"... ... ...

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 reason is that he is under an obligation to abide by the Constitution and to respect the ideals under the Constitution. The Constitution is more than 75 years old. By this time, the police officers ought to have been sensitised about their duty of abiding by the Constitution and respecting the ideals of the Constitution. If the police officers are not aware of these obligations, the State must ensure that they are educated and sensitised by starting massive training programmes.

39.

In the facts of the case, even without taking recourse to sub-section (3) of Section 173 BNSS, the information furnished to the police officer did not attract the offences punishable under Sections 196, 197, 299 and 302 BNS.

Standard to be applied

40.

At this stage, we cannot resist the temptation of quoting what Bose and Puranik, JJ., authored as the Judges of the erstwhile Nagpur High Court. In Bhagwati Charan Shuklav. Provincial Govt., C.P. & Berar [Bhagwati Charan Shukla v. Provincial Govt., C.P. & Berar, 1946 SCC OnLine MP 5], in para 67, it is held thus: (SCC OnLine MP)

“67.

Viewing the impugned article in that light we are of opinion, as a matter of fact, that it is not seditious because its professed aim is to obtain a change of Government through the ballot box and not to incite people to a disobedience of the laws of Government. Some extravagance of language there is, and there is the usual crude emotional appeal which is the stock-in-trade of the demagogue, as well as a blundering and ineffective attempt to ape the poets. But that is all. However, it is not enough to find that the writer is not guilty of sedition because we are concerned with Section 4 of the Press (Emergency Powers) Act which travels wider than Section 124-A. We have therefore further to see whether these words tend directly or indirectly to incite to sedition, or, in the words of the Ordinance, whether they are intended or are likely to produce that effect. We say deliberately whether the words are likely to incite to sedition because, as the Federal Court points out, the formula of words used in Section 4, as also in the Ordinance, is precisely the formula used in Section 124-A, therefore to the extent of the formula the two things are the same. The only difference is that under the Press Act we have to consider not only whether there is sedition in fact but also whether the words tend, directly or indirectly, to excite to sedition and whether they are intended or are likely to produce that effect. We pause to observe that here, as in the case of reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and as in the case of putting in fear of hurt in a matter of assault, we must use the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view. Using those standards we hold as a fact that the effects apprehended by the Crown and required by the section are not likely to be caused by this article, nor do the words used, viewed in their proper setting, tend to cause that effect. The paper is in English. It has a limited circulation. It is read by those who know and understand English. It is a party paper and is read mainly by persons who are politically minded. They are aware of contemporary political thought and occurrences. They realise as well as anyone else that neither His Excellency the Governor nor his advisers went round shooting and killing persons. They know that these acts were done by the troops and by the police. They know that there was a demand for an impartial investigation and a judicial enquiry. They know that the demand was refused and they know that the whole complaint, so far as Government is concerned, lies there. They are therefore no more likely to attribute to Government any greater responsibility than Mr Jamnadas Mehta and other members of the Central Assembly did. They are as much aware as the writer that the appeal is for a constitutional change of Government by constitutional means. They were not, in our opinion, likely to interpret it otherwise. Therefore, in our judgment, the article does not tend, directly or indirectly to sedition, nor is it likely to produce that result. In our view, the applications should be allowed and the orders of forfeiture set aside. The costs should, we think, in each case be paid by the Crown.” (emphasis supplied)”

O R D E R