A complaint that a news report created fear and could provoke discord was too general to sustain an FIR Against Journalist Uvesh Khan, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held, quashing the case over his report on violence during a Ganesh Visarjan procession and ruling that merely reporting an actual violent incident does not amount to promoting enmity between groups under Section 196(1) of the BNS.
Jabalpur: The criminal case against a YouTube news journalist, booked over the way he reported a violent incident during a Ganesh Visarjan procession at Silwani in Raisen district, has been quashed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which found that the complaint pointed to no specific words or material in his report that promoted enmity between communities [Uvesh Khan @ Uvesh Reporter v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.].
A single bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi passed the order on October 28, 2026, on a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The petition sought to quash FIR dated 08.09.2025, registered as Crime No. 328/2025 at Police Station Silwani for the offence under Section 196(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
Assertions Too General To Sustain A Case
The Court’s central finding was that the complaint did not say enough. It held:
“The assertions that the report created fear and confusion among members of a particular community and had the potential to provoke discord are general in nature. In the absence of specific allegations disclosing the essential ingredients of the offence, the mere possibility of public outrage or communal tension cannot, by itself, justify the continuation of criminal proceedings under the aforesaid provision.”
Where Reporting Ends And The Offence Begins
Section 196(1) of the BNS corresponds substantially to Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, Justice Himanshu Joshi noted, before holding:
“The mere reporting of an incident involving violence does not, by itself, constitute the offence. The nature and content of the publication, the context in which it was made, and the requisite connection with the promotion or attempted promotion of enmity between groups are material considerations.”
For the legal test, the Court turned to Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, AIR 2021 SC 1632. There the Supreme Court, following Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P., (1997) 7 SCC 431, reiterated that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence and that promotion of enmity or ill-will between at least two groups or communities is necessary. Mere incitement of the feelings of one community, without reference to another, would not by itself attract the provision, and the words used must be read in their entirety and in context.
A Report On A Real Incident
A screenshot of the news report was placed on record. The Court noted that it concerned violence at two places during the procession, in which two persons were injured. A separate FIR over an alleged assault during the same procession supported the applicant’s contention that the report related to an actual incident, although the Court added that the mere existence of another FIR would not, by itself, conclusively establish the legality or otherwise of the publication.
The Complaint Behind The FIR
The prosecution case, as recorded in the order, is that on 06.09.2025, during the Ganesh Visarjan procession at Silwani, Uvesh Khan, a journalist who operates a YouTube news channel, broadcast a report on an incident in the town. The complaint alleged that the manner of reporting created fear and confusion among members of a community and had the potential to provoke communal discord. The police registered the FIR under Section 196(1) of the BNS on that complaint.
The Journalist’s Case
Counsel for the applicant relied on his UDYAM certificate and an appointment letter issued by DNN News Channel to show that journalism is his profession. The report, it was argued, merely told of a violent incident during the procession in which two persons were injured. Counsel added that Crime No. 324/2025 had already been registered at the same police station over an assault on Ramashankar Dixit during the procession, and that the applicant had submitted a representation dated 10.09.2025 seeking closure of the FIR against him.
Neither a promotion of enmity between communities nor any material showing an intention to create communal disharmony could be found in the report, it was contended, so the essential ingredients of Section 196(1) were missing and continuing the case would be an abuse of process.
What The State And The Complainant Said
Opposing the petition, the State submitted that the allegations concerned the reporting of an incident in a sensitive communal setting, and that the effect and context of the publication needed investigation. The FIR, it argued, disclosed allegations warranting investigation and should not be quashed at the threshold. The complainant, arrayed as respondent no. 2, also opposed the relief and supported the registration of the FIR.
A Journalist’s Status Is Neither Shield Nor Handicap
Being a journalist offers no cover where an offence is otherwise made out, the Court made clear, even as it stressed the constitutional protection for reporting:
“The applicant’s status as a journalist does not confer immunity from criminal prosecution where the ingredients of an offence are otherwise made out. Equally, the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution cannot be curtailed merely because a report concerns a sensitive public incident. Any restriction on such expression must be justified in law.”
The Outcome
The material on record did not disclose a prima facie case under Section 196(1) of the BNS, the Court found, and continuing the proceedings on the allegations as framed would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The petition was allowed, and the FIR, Crime No. 328/2025, along with all consequential proceedings against the applicant, was quashed.
The order deals only with the FIR against the journalist over his report. It records no finding on the separate case, Crime No. 324/2025, concerning the alleged assault during the procession, in which the allegations remain to be tested and every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Why The Order Matters
Reporters covering processions, clashes and other sensitive local events are often booked on complaints that their coverage could inflame tensions. The order applies the settled test under the old Section 153A IPC to its BNS successor and draws a clear line: the police must point to specific words or material that promote enmity between groups, and a general claim that a report caused fear or might provoke discord is not enough to keep a journalist in the dock. The Court also kept prosecution open where the ingredients of the offence are actually made out, so the ruling protects accurate reporting of real events without granting journalists blanket immunity.
Case Title: Uvesh Khan @ Uvesh Reporter v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
Case No.: Misc. Criminal Case No. 51666 of 2025 (CNR MPHC010785982025)
Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:86748
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi
Date of Order: October 28, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Sankalp Kochar for the petitioner; Government Advocate Pramod Pandey for the respondent-State; Advocate Raman Choubey for respondent no. 2