FIR is Not an Encyclopedia, Abusive Conduct Deserves Scrutiny: Karnataka High Court Declines to Quash FIR Against Former Politician Over Alleged Abuse of Woman Officer

“A Man Once a Lawmaker is Expected to Be Circumspect in Speech, Especially Against a Woman Performing Statutory Duty” – Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, dismissed two connected criminal petitions seeking quashing of FIRs registered against a former political contestant, Sri Rajeev Gowda B.V., for allegedly abusing a woman municipal officer during a heated telephonic exchange over unauthorised banner removals. The Court underscored that “criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage” and that “the FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia”, thereby reinforcing the need to permit investigation to run its course.

The petitions were filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the successor to Section 482 of CrPC. The Court held that the facts disclosed prima facie commission of cognizable offences, including abuse and obstruction of public servant, and a possible offence under Section 79 BNS (insult to the modesty of a woman), thereby warranting no interference at the threshold.

Political Promotion Turns Legal Trouble

The controversy arose out of a film promotion event planned for 13 January 2026 in Shidlaghatta, Chikkaballapura district, led by the petitioner, Rajeev Gowda, a politician and former assembly election contestant. Banners and flexes bearing his image were installed across the city, allegedly in violation of civic norms and without municipal approval.

When these banners collapsed and caused obstruction to traffic, the Municipal Commissioner, Miss Amrutha G., a woman public servant, reportedly took steps to clear the area. In response, the petitioner allegedly called her on her personal number and hurled a volley of profane, derogatory and intimidating language, some of which, as recorded, “struck at the dignity of a woman”, according to the Court.

The recording of the telephonic conversation, later circulated widely on social media, formed the core of the complaint in Crime No. 9/2026. Another connected complaint, Crime No. 10/2026, was filed by the Vice President of a local political party, relating to the same incident, alleging abusive speech and unauthorised display of promotional material in public spaces.

The petitioner’s counsel, senior advocate Sri Vivek Reddy, argued that the invoked Section 132 of BNS (corresponding to Section 353 IPC) dealing with use of criminal force against a public servant was inapplicable, as there was no physical act involved. He submitted that all other offences were bailable and the petitioner was willing to issue a public apology.

However, the State, represented by Additional Special Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha, argued forcefully that while Section 132 might be disputed, the material unmistakably disclosed a prima facie case under Section 79 of the BNS (insult to the modesty of a woman) and Section 56 (common intention), among others. The prosecution emphasized that “an FIR is not an encyclopedia” and the final set of charges could evolve as investigation proceeds.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, agreeing with the State, observed:

“Whether the offences presently invoked are impeccably laid or whether alteration/addition of sections is warranted, is not a matter for adjudication at this threshold stage.”

Reiterating settled law, the Court cited the Supreme Court decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kunwar Singh, stating:

“At this stage, the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial court would do... A final report has been submitted under Section 173 of CrPC, after investigation.”

He further referred to the authoritative judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra, in which the Apex Court had clearly stated:

“Courts would not thwart any investigation into cognizable offences. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.”

On Insult to Modesty: “Filthy Language May Constitute an Offence under Section 79 BNS”

The Court expressed strong reservations over the petitioner’s choice of words directed at the municipal officer and observed that even if Section 132 was ultimately held not to apply, the utterances prima facie fell within the ambit of Section 79 BNS:

“A plain reading of the complaint and the conversation, however, would unmistakably reveal that the petitioner has spoken in a manner that strikes at the dignity of a woman…”

Quoting the statute, the Court noted:

“Section 79 of the BNS reads: ‘Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words... shall be punished with imprisonment…’”

The Judge underscored that the petitioner's conduct—considering his prior role as a political figure—fell below expected standards:

“A person who once held the status of a lawmaker is expected to be circumspect and restrained in his speech…”

Banner Nuisance and Civic Disregard: Court Flags Indifference of Authorities

Justice Nagaprasanna also took judicial notice of the growing menace of unauthorised banners and flexes in public places, remarking:

“It is high time that the State wakes up and enforces the law in earnest against unauthorised banners, placards, and flexes.”

He called for stronger implementation of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981, which is routinely flouted for film promotions and political campaigns.

Investigation is Indispensable

The Court concluded that there existed sufficient prima facie material to allow investigation to proceed and held:

“Whether the correct provision is invoked or alteration is required is a matter for investigation and not for quashing at inception… The police are entitled to add or alter offences during investigation with leave of Court.”

Accordingly, both petitions—Crl.P. No. 716 and 721 of 2026—were dismissed. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the limited scope of Section 528 BNSS and would not bind the investigation or the trial.

Date of Decision: 22 January 2026