Permitting Investigation Would Be Abuse Of Process Of Law: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Amith Malviya Over X Post On Rahul Gandhi
The Court quashed the case over a post accusing Rahul Gandhi of speaking “language of Pakistan” by questioning jet losses in Operation Sindoor.
The Karnataka High Court noting that permitting further investigation, where the complaint itself does not make out the basic ingredients of an offence, would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in a miscarriage of justice, quashed an FIR registered against Amit Malviya over a social media post against Rahul Gandhi.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat (2026) 1 SCC 721, Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 383, Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya (2021) 15 SCC 35 and Mithun Chakravarty Devidas Shet v. State of Karnataka S.L.P.No.14305 of 2024 decided on 25-07-2025, together with the Bhajan Lal categories. It quashed the proceedings against Amith Malviya under Sections 192 and 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
A Single Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “The Apex Court in MITHUN CHAKRAVARTY DEVIDAS SHET’s case holds that since the complaint did not make out basic ingredients of offence, permitting investigation even, would not be necessary. The said finding would, on the face of it, become applicable to the cases at hand. Therefore, permitting further investigation even, against the petitioners, would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice”.
Senior Advocate M. Aruna Shyam appeared for the petitioner and N. Jagadeesha, SPP-I appeared for the respondent.
The complaint, dated May 20, 2025, was filed by Sridhar M.M., State Vice President of the Youth Congress legal cell. It alleged that the petitioner posted an edited photograph of Rahul Gandhi on X, with remarks that he was speaking the language of Pakistan by questioning jet losses during Operation Sindoor despite DGMO briefings. The complainant said the post portrayed Rahul Gandhi as a counterpart of Pakistan’s Army Chief and tended to incite enmity.
A case was registered at High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru, under Sections 192 and 353 BNS. The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS on May 22, 2025, and a Vacation Bench granted an interim stay the same day. The State and the complainant contended that, at the least, investigation should be permitted.
The Court observed that whether the complaint attracted Sections 192 and 353 BNS need not detain it for long. It extracted Supreme Court rulings holding that the effect of words must be judged by the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous persons, not those of weak and vacillating minds. It also extracted rulings that dissent is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, and that mens rea is an essential ingredient of such offences.
The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, pending before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Pending applications were disposed of.
Cause Title: Amith Malviya v. State of Karnataka & Anr., Criminal Petition No. 7434 of 2025.
Appearances:
Petitioner: M. Aruna Shyam, Senior Advocate, with Suyog Herele E., Advocate.
Respondent: B.N. Jagadeesha, SPP-I, C.M. Dhananjaya, Advocates.