A plea to quash a Facebook post case over remarks on the caste of a political leader and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar has failed in the Karnataka High Court, which called it a gross abuse of process and imposed Rs 25,000 costs on the accused.
Bengaluru: A Mandya resident who asked the Karnataka High Court to quash the chargesheet against him over a Facebook post referring to the caste of a political leader and of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar has been left with a trial to face and Rs 25,000 in costs to pay, the Court holding that the material clearly shows the matter must be tried [Mahesha K.C. @ Mahesh Gowda v. State of Karnataka and Another].
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde dismissed the criminal petition at the admission stage by an oral order dated November 2, 2026, with costs payable to the District Legal Services Authority, Mysuru.
The Court’s verdict on the plea
“The Court after having gone through the contents of the complaint, is of the view that this petition is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the Court. Not a single ground is made out to quash the proceedings. On the other hand, the charge sheet materials clearly indicate that the matter has to be tried.”
The petition was dismissed on payment of Rs 25,000 costs to the DLSA, Mysuru. If the costs are not paid, the Court directed, the DLSA shall recover them from the petitioner as if under a civil court decree.
What the complaint says
The case, Crime No. 131/2025 of the South Police Station, Mysuru, arises from a complaint by S. Vijaykumar, a functionary of the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee. According to the complaint, the petitioner Mahesha K.C., also known as Mahesh Gowda, posted derogatory remarks on Facebook about Karnataka Minister Priyank Kharge, referred to his caste and questioned his respect for Dr. Ambedkar by stating that Ambedkar was born into the same caste.
The police filed a chargesheet, now Special Case No. 336/2025 before the VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru, invoking Section 352 and other provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 3(1)(r), (s) and (u) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS to quash it.
Locus and offence: the two lines of argument
Advocate K.M. Sanath Kumara, for the petitioner, argued that the complaint was filed by a member of a political party, not by the person named in the post, and that the complainant therefore had no locus to set the law in motion. He also contended that the post did not amount to any offence.
Additional State Public Prosecutor M.V. Anoop Kumar submitted that the post referred to the caste of a political leader and of Dr. Ambedkar, and that the police were justified in investigating and filing the chargesheet.
Why the order matters
The order underlines the narrow scope of quashing jurisdiction once a chargesheet is filed. Where the chargesheet material discloses a triable case, objections such as the complainant’s locus or whether the words amount to an offence are generally left to the trial court, and a quashing petition that raises nothing more can attract costs.
It also contrasts with recent rulings in which the same High Court quashed cases over social media posts that disclosed no offence, showing that each case turns on its own material. The allegations against the petitioner remain untested; the High Court has only declined to end the case at the threshold, and he is presumed innocent until proven guilty at trial.
Case Title: Mahesha K.C. @ Mahesh Gowda v. State of Karnataka and Another [Criminal Petition No. 9363 of 2026; 2026:KHC:60852]
Bench: Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: November 2, 2026
Appearances: Advocate K.M. Sanath Kumara for the petitioner; Additional SPP M.V. Anoop Kumar for the State