“Admittedly, the complainant is not the person against whom the specific statement is made,” the Court noted, setting aside an FIR under Section 509 of the IPC against former BJP MLA Sanjay Patil over a remark allegedly made at a 2024 election rally in Belagavi. The Court expressed no view on the merits of the underlying allegation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bengaluru: Quashing criminal proceedings under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) against former BJP MLA Sanjay Patil, the Karnataka High Court has held that the complainant was not an aggrieved person and that the ingredients of the offence were not made out. [Sanjay Patil v. State of Karnataka & Another]
Criminal Petition No. 3888 of 2025, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was decided by Justice M. Nagaprasanna.
The Complaint Behind The FIR
The FIR followed a complaint filed on 16 April 2024 by a Congress party worker. She alleged that Patil, at an election campaign rally for the Belagavi Lok Sabha constituency in 2024, made a derogatory remark about the then Women and Child Welfare Minister of Karnataka, a Congress leader. The complainant had heard the statement, which was allegedly directed at her party leader. The allegation is the complainant’s and was never tested at trial. The remark is not reproduced here.
Standing And Ingredients
The Court’s ruling turned on the person at whom the remark was aimed. The complainant was not that person, it held, and so could not be an aggrieved person. It observed:
“Admittedly, the complainant is not the person against whom the specific statement is made.”
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Madhushree Datta v. State (2025), the Court said:
“Section 509 of the IPC cannot be invoked when there is no specific word uttered or hurled against a particular person.”
The complainant, it added, “has not heard any abuses against her, much less for it to become an ingredient under Section 509 of the IPC”. The statement did not meet the ingredients of the offence, the Court found, and letting the investigation go on would lead to a miscarriage of justice, so the case was quashed.
Limits Of The Ruling
The decision rests on the complainant’s standing and the ingredients of Section 509, not on whether the remark was proper; the Court expressed no view on the conduct alleged. The available report does not indicate any response from the complainant or the State.
ALSO READ: Karnataka High Court Bars Coercive Steps Against BJP Leader Ravi Patil In Belagavi Form 7 Case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
Case Details: Sanjay Patil v. State of Karnataka & Another, Criminal Petition No. 3888 of 2025 (Karnataka High Court; date of order not stated in the source). Before: Justice M. Nagaprasanna.
Appearances: Not reported.