Karnataka High Court Quashes Second FIR Against BJP MLA Basanagouda Patil Yatnal registered over the same Ramanavami speech, holding that it could not survive once the first FIR on that speech had been quashed and the order had become final.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has quashed a second FIR registered against BJP MLA Basanagouda R. Patil (Yatnal) over a speech he delivered on the occasion of Ramanavami on April 7, 2025, after noting that the first FIR on the same speech had already been quashed and that the order had become final [Sri Basanagouda R. Patil (Yatnal) v. State of Karnataka and Another].
Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed Criminal Petition No. 7632 of 2025, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, against Crime No. 51 of 2025 registered by the Hubballi Town Police Station on April 17, 2025, for offences under Sections 196(1), 299 and 353(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The order was reserved on September 2, 2026 and pronounced on October 16, 2026.
How the case reached the High Court
The Court recorded that the MLA from Vijayapura delivered the speech on April 7, 2025, and that a first FIR, Crime No. 80 of 2025, was registered at the Gandhi Chowk Police Station in Vijayapura. He challenged it in Criminal Petition No. 5628 of 2025, and the High Court passed an interim order. According to the order, “the moment an interim order is granted”, a second complaint on the same incident was registered on April 17, 2025 at the Hubballi Town Police Station.
The complaint by Mohammad Hannan alleged that the remarks about the Prophet Muhammad were derogatory and hurt religious sentiments. The allegations are those of the complainant and the Court did not examine their truth in this order.
The contentions
Advocate Girish Bharadwaj for the MLA argued that the crime was deliberately registered in two places so that he could not take the benefit of the interim order in the first petition. He submitted that the statement had caused no disharmony and that the issue was covered by decisions of the Supreme Court.
Advocate R. Kothwal for the complainant contended that the statements, on their face, generated communal disharmony and that the matter had to be tried. He argued that the case could not be closed at the threshold even if another crime on the same incident had been quashed, and that the present crime had to be investigated. Additional State Public Prosecutor Anoop Kumar appeared for the State.
What the Court held
The Court noted that Crime No. 80 of 2025 had been quashed by its order of August 20, 2026 in Criminal Petition No. 5628 of 2025. In that order, relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat and Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra, it had held that the basic ingredient of the offences under Sections 196 and 353 of the BNS, or Sections 153A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, is an attempt to incite people belonging to a community to indulge in violence, and that this ingredient was not met.
The order notes that Sections 196(1), 299 and 353(1) of the BNS correspond to Sections 153A, 295A and 505 of the IPC.
Turning to the second FIR, the Court observed:
“The said order has become final. The second crime on the same incident must tumble down for the very reason of quashment of the crime in Crime No.80 of 2025.”
The Court allowed the petition and held that the FIR in Crime No. 51 of 2025, pending before the JMFC I Court, Hubballi, “stands quashed”. Pending applications were disposed of.
Why the order matters
The order ties the fate of a second FIR to the fate of the first when both arise from one speech. The Court did not treat the second case as a fresh matter to be investigated on its own, because the earlier quashing, decided on the Supreme Court’s tests for offences of promoting enmity, had attained finality.
The Court has examined only whether the second FIR could stand. It has not held that the remarks were or were not offensive in themselves, and the complainant’s contentions on that point were not adjudicated.
Case Title: Sri Basanagouda R. Patil (Yatnal) v. State of Karnataka and Another [Criminal Petition No. 7632 of 2025]
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: October 16, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Girish Bharadwaj for the petitioner; Additional State Public Prosecutor Anoop Kumar for the State; Advocate R. Kothwal for respondent No. 2