Mere Reporting of Violent Incident Does Not Promote Communal Enmity: MP High Court [Read Order]

Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has quashed an FIR under Section 196(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against a YouTube journalist over his report on a violent incident during a Ganesh Visarjan procession, holding that the allegations did not identify any specific words or material promoting enmity between two communities. 

Justice Himanshu Joshi passed the order on 28 October 2026 in a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The petitioner, Uvesh Khan @ Uvesh Reporter, sought quashing of the FIR dated 08.09.2025, registered as Crime No. 328/2025 at Police Station Silwani, District Raisen. According to the prosecution case, on 06.09.2025, during the Ganesh Visarjan procession at Silwani, he broadcast on his YouTube news channel a report on an incident in the town. The complaint alleged that the manner of reporting created fear and confusion among members of the Hindu community and had the potential to provoke communal discord.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is a journalist, as shown by his UDYAM certificate and an appointment letter from DNN News Channel, and that the report, a screenshot of which was filed, merely reported a violent incident in which two persons were injured. He pointed out that Crime No. 324/2025, regarding an assault on one Ramashankar Dixit during the procession, had already been registered at the same police station, and that the petitioner had also submitted a representation on 10.09.2025 seeking closure of the FIR. It was argued that the report neither promotes enmity nor shows an intention to create communal disharmony.

The State opposed the petition, submitting that the allegations concern reporting of an incident in a sensitive communal setting and that the effect and context of the publication require investigation, so the proceedings should not be quashed at the threshold. The complainant, respondent No. 2, also opposed the relief and supported the registration of the FIR.

The Court noted that Section 196(1) BNS substantially corresponds to Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, and penalises acts that promote or attempt to promote disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups on specified grounds. It held that the “mere reporting of an incident involving violence” does not by itself constitute the offence, and that the nature and content of the publication, its context and the connection with the promotion of enmity between groups are material considerations.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya (AIR 2021 SC 1632), which relied on Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P., the Court reiterated that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence, that promotion of enmity between at least two groups or communities is necessary, and that the words must be assessed in their entirety and in the context in which they were used.

On the facts, the Court noted that the screenshot of the report showed that it concerned a violent incident at two places during the procession, resulting in injuries to two persons. The registration of Crime No. 324/2025 lent support to the petitioner’s contention that the report related to an actual incident, though it said that the existence of another FIR would not, by itself, conclusively establish the legality of the publication.

The Court nevertheless held that the allegations in the FIR do not identify any specific words, expressions or material in the report that promoted or attempted to promote enmity between two communities on any of the grounds under Section 196(1). The assertions that the report created fear and confusion and could provoke discord were general in nature, and the mere possibility of public outrage or communal tension cannot justify continuing the proceedings.

The Court added that a journalist’s status does not confer immunity from prosecution where the ingredients of an offence are made out, but that the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) cannot be curtailed merely because a report concerns a sensitive public incident, and any restriction must be justified in law. Finding that no prima facie case was disclosed, it held that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.

Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner.

Appearances: For the Petitioner: Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate. For the State: Shri Pramod Pandey, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 2: Shri Raman Choubey, Advocate.

Case Title: Uvesh Khan @ Uvesh Reporter v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, Misc. Criminal Case No. 51666 of 2025

[Read Order]