‘Beyond Civility’: Karnataka HC Denies Quashing FIRs Against Congress Leader For Abusing Woman Official

The Karnataka High Court on January 22, 2026, refused to quash two FIRs registered against Congress leader Rajeev Gowda BV over allegations of abusing and intimidating a woman Municipal Commissioner following the removal of unauthorised banners put up for film promotion in Shidlaghatta town.

While declining to interfere at the threshold stage, the bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna also expressed surprise that Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with insulting the modesty of a woman, had not been invoked despite the nature of the allegations.

The bench noted that the telephonic conversation attributed to Gowda, prima facie, involved language directed at a woman public servant that warranted consideration of the provision.

Dismissing Gowda’s criminal petition, Justice Nagaprasanna held that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences requiring investigation and that the court could not short-circuit the probe at a stage when it had barely commenced.

Court also observed that a person who had held public office was expected to exercise restraint in speech, particularly when addressing a woman discharging statutory duties.

"No man can be permitted to speak in the language so offensive, so as to be beyond the pale of civility and lawful tolerance. At the very least, the language employed deserves investigation," court held. 

The case arises from the promotion of a Kannada film titled “Cult”, for which banners and flexes bearing Gowda’s image were installed across the City Fort area of Shidlaghatta. The promotional event was scheduled to be held on January 13, 2026, at Nehru Stadium.

According to the prosecution, several banners were erected without permission in accident-prone zones, obstructing vehicular movement and causing public inconvenience. Acting on complaints from residents, the Municipal Commissioner of Shidlaghatta removed the banners in the course of her official duties.

The removal allegedly provoked Gowda, who on January 12, 2026, telephoned the Commissioner and used abusive, obscene and threatening language. The conversation, recorded on the Commissioner’s phone, was later circulated widely on social media.

Based on her complaint, Shidlaghatta Town Police registered a case under Sections 132, 224, 352, 351(3) and 56 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. A second FIR was also registered on a complaint by the vice-president of a political party in Shidlaghatta taluk under Sections 352 and 353(2), alleging unauthorised installation of banners and derogatory remarks against a sitting MLA.

Challenging the FIRs, Gowda argued that Section 132 BNS had been wrongly invoked as no physical force was used against a public servant. Senior counsel Vivek Reddy, appearing for him, contended that the dispute was being criminalised and sought protection from arrest, offering to tender a public apology.

The State opposed the plea, submitting that an FIR was not required to be an encyclopaedia and that investigation could result in addition or alteration of offences. It maintained that the language attributed to Gowda justified further probe, including into offences concerning acts against a woman.

Court also took note of the larger issue of unauthorised banners and flexes in public spaces, observing that such installations posed serious risks to public safety and civic order. Referring to the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981, it said enforcement had remained lax despite rampant violations.

"The State appears to have remained blissfully indifferent to the rampant proliferation of such banners and flexes across public spaces. Such acts would squarely fall within the ambit of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981, yet action is seldom taken against such disfigurement. It is high time that the State wakes up and enforces the law in earnest against unauthorised banners, placards, and flexes," Justice Nagaprasanna wrote.

On the matter at hand, holding that the petitions were filed within days of the registration of the FIRs and before investigation had meaningfully progressed, court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.

Both petitions were dismissed, with a clarification that the observations were confined to consideration under Section 528 of the BNSS and would not influence the ongoing investigation.

Case Title: Rajeev Gowda BV vs State of Karnataka

Order Date: January 22, 2026

Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna