“Mere Reporting Of A Violent Incident Is Not Promoting Enmity”: MP High Court Quashes FIR Against YouTube Journalist

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR against a YouTube journalist accused of promoting communal disharmony through a news report on a violent incident during a Ganesh Visarjan procession, holding that “the mere reporting of an incident involving violence does not, by itself, constitute the offence.”

Justice Himanshu Joshi of the Jabalpur bench allowed a petition filed by Uvesh Khan alias Uvesh Reporter under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (Section 482 of CrPC). The petition sought to quash FIR dated 08.09.2025, registered as Crime No.328/2025 at Police Station Silwani, District Raisen, under Section 196(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) (Section 153-A IPC), along with all consequential proceedings.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner, who runs a YouTube news channel, broadcast a report on 06.09.2025 about an incident in Silwani during the Ganesh Visarjan procession. 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.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Sankalp Kochar argued that Khan is a journalist by profession, relying on his UDYAM certificate and an appointment letter issued by DNN News Channel. He submitted that the report merely covered a violent incident in which two persons were injured. He added that Crime No.324/2025, concerning an assault on one Ramashankar Dixit during the same procession, had already been registered at the same police station, and that Khan had submitted a representation on 10.09.2025 seeking closure of the impugned FIR.

The State, represented by Government Advocate Pramod Pandey, opposed the plea, arguing that the report concerned a sensitive communal setting and that its effect and context required investigation. Advocate Raman Choubey, appearing for the complainant (respondent no.2), also opposed the relief sought.

The Court noted that Section 196(1) of the BNS corresponds substantially to Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code. It observed that the “nature and content of the publication, the context in which it was made, and the requisite connection with the promotion or attempted promotion of enmity between groups are material considerations.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, which in turn drew on Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P., the Court reiterated that criminal intention is an essential ingredient of the offence and that promotion of enmity between at least two groups or communities must be shown. Inciting the feelings of one community alone would not attract the provision.

On the facts, the Court found that the screenshot of the report showed it dealt with a violent incident at two places during the procession, leaving two persons injured. The registration of Crime No.324/2025, it said, lent support to the petitioner’s claim that the report related to an actual incident, though another FIR would not by itself establish its legality.

Even so, the Court held that the allegations in the impugned FIR did “not identify any specific words, expressions or material” in the report that promoted or attempted to promote enmity between two communities. The assertions that the report created fear and confusion were “general in nature”, and “the mere possibility of public outrage or communal tension cannot, by itself, justify the continuation of criminal proceedings.”

The Court also balanced press freedom. “The applicant’s status as a journalist does not confer immunity from criminal prosecution where the ingredients of an offence are otherwise made out,” it said. At the same time, it added, the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution “cannot be curtailed merely because a report concerns a sensitive public incident. Any restriction on such expression must be justified in law.”

Finding that the material on record disclosed no prima facie case under Section 196(1) of the BNS (Section 153-A IPC), the Court held that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It accordingly quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner.

Case Title: Uvesh Khan @ Uvesh Reporter vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another

Order Date: October 28, 2026

Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi