Seven FIRs over one incident, and a news report reposted on X: the Karnataka High Court has issued six guidelines against mechanical arrests and repeat FIRs over social media posts, saying that registration of a crime must not automatically lead to arrest, and has quashed the Puttur case against the account’s administrator.
Bengaluru: Crime No. 88 of 2026, registered by the Puttur Town Police under Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the administrator of the X account “Karnataka Portfolio” over a repost about an alleged incident in Puttur, has been quashed by the Karnataka High Court. Alongside, the Court has laid down guidelines for jurisdictional police on scrutinising complaints over social media posts, avoiding successive FIRs on one incident and following the law on arrest [Sandeep Kumar v. State of Karnataka and Another].
The petition, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was allowed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna. The order was reserved on 25 September 2026 and pronounced on 16 October 2026.
Seven crimes, one incident
The petitioner’s account reposted a report on 8 July 2026 that six youths had been taken into police custody after a woman alleged she was threatened and followed on her way to work at Purusharakatte in Puttur taluk, Dakshina Kannada. A resident of Puttur, the second respondent, complained on 9 July 2026 that the post targeted him and his friends, spread false information and was aimed at creating communal tension. A case was registered under Section 353(2) BNS, and a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS was issued to the petitioner.
According to the petitioner, seven cases, Crime Nos. 82 to 88 of 2026, had been registered at the same police station over the same incident against various individuals and media platforms. The allegations about the underlying incident were not before the High Court, remain untested, and the presumption of innocence applies to everyone concerned.
What each side said
Advocate Girish Bharadwaj, for the petitioner, argued that the account only re-published information already on social media, was neither author nor originator, and that the post did not refer to any identifiable group. He also contended that the complainant had used local influence to have multiple cases registered.
For the State, High Court Government Pleader Deepthi Alva submitted that all procedure had been followed and a Section 35(3) BNSS notice issued, and that the post had caused disharmony, so the investigation should continue. The second respondent was served and unrepresented.
No community named, no intent shown
Section 353(2) BNS, the successor to Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, punishes making, publishing or circulating a statement containing false information, rumour or alarming news with intent to promote, or likely to promote, enmity or ill-will between religious, racial, language or regional groups, castes or communities. The Court surveyed the Supreme Court’s rulings in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra and Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, which treat intent and the involvement of at least two groups as essential, along with the Bhajan Lal categories for quashing.
Applying them, it found that neither the complaint nor the post named any religious group or disclosed an intent to generate communal disharmony:
“The entire complaint or entire tweet from the statement that is allegedly made by the petitioner nowhere names any religious groups for generating communal disharmony.”
The Court then turned to the registration of seven cases from one incident, and said:
“Since crime after crime is registered by the very Police Station on an incident of reporting of a particular act, it is shocking as to how for the asking, the crimes are registered by the jurisdictional police on the same incident without there being any ingredient of crime and without holding any preliminary inquiry.”
Six safeguards for the police
On arrest, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI on Section 35 BNSS, and on the Telangana High Court’s guidelines in Nalla Balu, which the Supreme Court declined to disturb in February 2026 when the State of Telangana challenged them.
To prevent “the mechanical registration of crimes, multiplicity of proceedings arising from the same incident and arbitrary exercise of police powers”, it directed jurisdictional police to follow six safeguards, subject to the BNSS and Supreme Court law:
- Scrutiny of ingredients: examine whether the allegations, at face value, disclose the essential ingredients of the offence; mere reproduction of the penal provision is no substitute.
- Successive complaints: ascertain whether a crime is already registered on the same incident or substantially identical post.
- Preliminary inquiry: consider one under Section 173(3) BNSS where permissible, without using it to avoid registering a mandatory cognisable offence.
- Section 353(2) BNS: examine the specific ingredients, including intent and its link to the classes or communities contemplated; mere criticism or disagreement is not to be mechanically brought within it.
- No mechanical arrest: follow Section 35 BNSS and the rulings in Satender Kumar Antil, Joginder Kumar and Arnesh Kumar; where arrest conditions are unmet, follow the Section 35(3) notice procedure.
- Institutional accountability: the Director General and Inspector General of Police must circulate these principles to all jurisdictional officers.
On successive FIRs, the Court said:
“A fresh crime shall not be registered merely because the complainant is different, unless the allegations disclose a legally distinct occurrence or an independently registrable offence.”
The operative directions
The criminal petition was allowed and the FIR in Crime No. 88 of 2026, pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Puttur, was quashed. The Court directed that the guidelines of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil, the Telangana High Court in Nalla Balu and those in its own order be followed “in letter and spirit”, with the Director General and Inspector General of Police to ensure strict compliance.
What the order adds
Karnataka now has a version of the Telangana model of scrutiny before registration, with a further check specific to Section 353(2) BNS: a post that merely reports an incident, without naming a community or showing intent to promote enmity, does not meet the offence. The order also curbs the pattern of a separate FIR for each complainant on a single incident.
Only the case against the reposting account was quashed. The Court did not rule on the merits of the underlying incident or on the other six cases, which were not before it.
Case Title: Sandeep Kumar v. State of Karnataka and Another
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 13010 of 2026
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: October 16, 2026
Appearances: Girish Bharadwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner; Deepthi Alva, High Court Government Pleader, for the State; the second respondent was served and unrepresented