Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Over Facebook Post using the term “jihadi”: a plain reading of the message did not attract Sections 295A and 505(2) IPC, the Court said.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bengaluru: Criminal proceedings against the operator of a Facebook page, registered under Sections 295A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), cannot continue, the Karnataka High Court has ruled, finding that the message posted on the page lacked the ingredients of either offence [Atul Kumar Sabarwal @ Madhugiri Modi v. State of Karnataka and Others].
Justice V Srishananda allowed the writ petition (W.P. No. 22820 of 2024) by an oral order dated September 21, 2026, uploaded on October 7. The petitioner had approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Holding the post against the statute
The Court began with the ingredients of the two provisions. Section 295A, it noted, needs an insult, or an attempt to insult, a religion or religious belief so as to outrage the religious feelings of a class of citizens, by words, signs or visible representation, and the act must be done with a deliberate and malicious intention.
Setting those requirements beside the message on the petitioner’s page, it held:
“On close reading of the above ingredients, vis-à-vis the message that has been posted on the facebook account of the petitioner named as Hindu Samrat Dharmasene, this Court does not find that the suo moto action initiated by the Badavanahalli Police Station, needs further investigation for want of necessary ingredients to attract those offences. As such, continuation of the same would amount to abuse of the process of law.”
How the complaint became an FIR
The petitioner, Atul Kumar Sabarwal, who describes himself as “Madhugiri Modi”, was alleged to have put up a message on a Facebook account named “Hindu Samrat Dharmasene”. A member of a social media monitoring cell saw it, traced the account to him and complained that the post had hurt the feelings of a particular community and would lead to social disharmony.
The Badavanahalli Police Station in Tumakuru district registered Crime No. 40/2024 on April 27, 2024, under Sections 295A and 505(2) IPC. The text of the post is not reproduced here.
Two readings of one message
The petitioner’s case was that, read plainly, the message attracted no ingredient of Section 295A or Section 505(2) IPC, and the complaint deserved to be quashed. Additional State Public Prosecutor Surya Mukundaraj contended that the words were intended to hurt the feelings of the Muslim community and would result in social disharmony, so the matter needed to be investigated.
The operative direction
Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the proceedings in Crime No. 40/2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 295A and 505(2) IPC and pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class Court at Madhugiri taluk, Tumakuru district.
What the order shows
Section 295A IPC is not triggered merely because a post is alleged to have wounded a community’s feelings. It needs a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings, while Section 505(2) needs a statement made with the specific intents the provision lists. Where the words, read as they stand, disclose neither, the High Court will treat the continuation of the case as an abuse of the process of law.
The finding rests on the Court’s reading of the message against the statutory ingredients. The prosecution’s contention that the post was meant to hurt a community was recorded but not accepted at the threshold.
Case Title: Atul Kumar Sabarwal @ Madhugiri Modi v. State of Karnataka and Others [W.P. No. 22820 of 2024 (GM-RES)]
Bench: Justice V Srishananda, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: September 21, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Madhusudhan Adiga B for the petitioner; Additional State Public Prosecutor Surya Mukundaraj for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3