The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a shopkeeper from Athani in Belagavi district who was booked for putting up barricades outside his shop and allegedly making disparaging remarks about the Prime Minister when a social worker questioned him about the obstruction. Justice Venkatesh Naik T, sitting at the Dharwad bench, held that the complaint failed to disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, and that letting the prosecution continue would amount to an abuse of the legal process.

The case, titled Imtiyaz Nuruddin Chinchali v. State of Karnataka and Another, was decided on September 18, 2026, with the order becoming public this week.

What Actually Happened

According to the complaint, the petitioner, Imtiyaz Nuruddin Chinchali, had placed barricades on the road in front of his shop. When a social worker questioned him about the obstruction, he allegedly responded with statements critical of the Prime Minister of India. The exchange reportedly circulated later on a WhatsApp group as a video, which is how the complainant and others learned of what had allegedly been said.

The complaint itself was not lodged immediately — it came several days after the incident, a delay that would later become relevant to the court’s reasoning. Based on the complaint, Athani Police registered an FIR under two provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: Section 285, which deals with causing danger or obstruction in a public way, and Section 352, which criminalises intentional insult meant to provoke a breach of the peace.

The Legal Challenge

Chinchali approached the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, correlated with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking to have the FIR and the proceedings quashed. His central argument was straightforward: nowhere in the complaint was there an allegation that he had insulted or abused the complainant personally. What was alleged, at most, was a political remark directed at the Prime Minister — a third party who was not the one filing the complaint. He contended that a political statement, however provocative, cannot be turned into a personal criminal case without the law’s basic requirements being satisfied.

The State and the complainant pushed back, arguing that the barricades had caused genuine public inconvenience, that the words used were intended to provoke a breach of peace, and that these were disputed factual questions better suited for a trial than for the High Court’s limited quashing jurisdiction.

Why the Court Sided With the Shopkeeper

The judgment turns on a fairly technical but important reading of Section 352 of the BNS. The Court explained that this provision requires an intentional insult aimed at causing the person insulted to breach the public peace — and critically, that person must be the one before the court, not someone else entirely. Examining the complaint on its own terms, the Court found that the petitioner had not insulted or abused the complainant at all; the only allegation was that he had made a comment about the Prime Minister, who was not a party to the case.

Vague, general allegations without a specific insult aimed at the complainant, the Court held, simply do not meet the threshold that Section 352 demands.

In reaching this conclusion, the bench relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., a ruling interpreting the equivalent provision under the old Indian Penal Code. That precedent had clarified that mere rudeness, discourtesy or abuse does not amount to intentional insult in the legal sense unless there is a clear intention or knowledge that it would provoke the insulted person into breaching the peace. Where a complaint fails to show these ingredients, the Supreme Court had said, continuing the criminal case becomes an abuse of process.

The High Court additionally found that Section 285 — the obstruction provision — was not made out either, and flagged the unexplained four-day gap between the alleged incident and the filing of the complaint as a factor weakening the prosecution’s case further.

The Court’s Broader Point

Importantly, the judgment does not comment on whether the remark about the Prime Minister was appropriate or not. As the Court framed it, this was a decision about whether the complaint’s own facts fit the legal definition of the offence — not an assessment of the politics or propriety of what was allegedly said. The ruling essentially draws a line: Section 352 exists to protect a specific person from being provoked into a public breach of peace by an insult directed at them, not to serve as a general-purpose remedy whenever a bystander takes offence at a remark made about someone else, even a public figure.

This distinction matters well beyond this one case. It reinforces a well-established principle — traced back to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal line of cases — that courts can and should quash criminal proceedings at the threshold when the allegations, even taken entirely at face value, do not disclose a criminal offence. Forcing an accused person through a full trial in such situations, the Court reasoned, serves no legitimate purpose and unfairly burdens the individual.

Case Details

• Case Title: Imtiyaz Nuruddin Chinchali v. State of Karnataka and Another
• Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 101720 of 2026
• Bench: Justice Venkatesh Naik T, Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench
• Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-D:15574
• Date of Order: September 18, 2026
• Outcome: FIR and proceedings under Sections 285 and 352 BNS quashed; criminal petition allowed

Key Takeaway

This ruling is a useful reminder of how narrowly Section 352 of the BNS — much like its IPC predecessor, Section 504 — is meant to operate. An offensive or provocative remark about a public figure, made to a third party who happens to be listening, does not automatically translate into a criminal case unless the person filing the complaint was themselves the target of an insult intended to provoke them specifically. For citizens and legal observers alike, the order underscores that criminal law cannot be stretched to cover every instance of a political remark someone finds objectionable — the statute has precise ingredients, and courts will step in when a complaint doesn’t meet them.