प्रधानमंत्री को अपमान करने के बयान से सेक्शन 352 BNS नहीं लागू, कर्नाटक हाई कोर्ट ने केस खारिज किया

- Home

- /

- High Courts

- /

- Karnataka High Court

- /

- Insult To Prime Minister Doesn't...

Insult To Prime Minister Doesn't Attract S.352 BNS Without Intent To Provoke Breach Of Peace: Karnataka High Court

Sebin James

24 Sept 2026 4:04 PM IST

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings against a man who was booked by Athani Police for allegedly putting up barricades in front of his shop and making insulting remarks against the Prime Minister when he was questioned by a social worker. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 378]The single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T held that the complaint did not disclose...

This is a premium content

Available exclusively to

Our subscribers

Subscribe Premium INR 1099+GST

Your support helps us to bring you more content at

an affordable subscription scheme !!!

All payment options available

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings against a man who was booked by Athani Police for allegedly putting up barricades in front of his shop and making insulting remarks against the Prime Minister when he was questioned by a social worker. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 378]

The single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T held that the complaint did not disclose intentional insult to the complainant, and mere abuse or rudeness may not amount to an offence under Section 352 BNS.

“…The allegation against the petitioner is essentially that, when the complainant questioned him regarding the barricades, he made certain statements against the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. There is no specific allegation that the petitioner abused or intentionally insulted the complainant so as to provoke a breach of peace..”, the court pointed out.

The Court also noted that the incident occurred on January 7, 2026, but the complaint was lodged on January 11, 2026, and the four-day delay was not properly explained.

According to the complaint, in January 2026, when the complainant-social worker and the others were near the BJP office, they received information about a video circulating on a WhatsApp Group. The video allegedly showed an incident near the petitioner's shop, where he had placed barricades on the road, allegedly causing inconvenience to the public. When the complainant questioned him for obstructing traffic, the petitioner allegedly used insulting words against the Prime Minister. Aggrieved by seeing the same, a complaint was lodged immediately saying the petitioner had verbally abused the Prime Minister, along with the offence of Section 285 BNS [obstructing traffic].

Before the High Court, the petitioner's counsel argued that there was no allegation that he abused or insulted the complainant. The only allegation was that he made a statement against the Prime Minister. It was further argued that an alleged political statement could not be converted into a personal criminal prosecution when the basic ingredients of the offences are not met. Further, Section 352 BNS was not attracted as the complaint did not disclose any intentional insult against the complainant.

The respondent-State and complainant argued in return that the complaint disclosed prima facie material. The barricades put up by the petitioner had caused public inconvenience. Moreover, the alleged insulting words, purportedly against the Prime Minister, were used with intent to provoke breach of peace. Since such aspects form questions of fact, the petitioner should face the rigours of the trial, the respondent s argued,

The Court, relying on relied on the judgment in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., (2023), interpreted Sections 285 and 352 BNS to underscore that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence may not amount to intentional insult unless the requisite intention or knowledge to provoke the person insulted to cause breach of peace or commit another offence is established.

“…. The allegations are general and omnibus in nature. Therefore, in the absence of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law…”, the court clarified further.

Accordingly, the criminal petition was allowed and the pending proceedings before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani was quashed.

Case Title: Imtiyaz Nuruddin Chinchali v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: Criminal Petition No.101720 of 2026

Tags

Sebin James

Sebin James is a Correspondent with LiveLaw, covering the Karnataka High Court

Powered by Nyaya 247 News