3 min readBengaluruFeb 20, 2026 02:58 PM IST
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a man who allegedly sent a WhatsApp message to the complainant questioning him for inviting Hindu priests to attend the inaugural ceremony of a function hall.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW VIDEO
In an order dated February 5, Justice Rajesh Rai K allowed the petition filed by Abdul Khavee and quashed the case registered against him under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act based on the complaint lodged by Mohammed Aliuddin.
In his complaint, Aliuddin alleged that his brother, Mohd Allauddin Junaidi, constructed a function hall and invited Hindu and Muslim religious leaders, along with other political leaders, to its inauguration on November 15, 2021.
He alleged that on November 13, 2021, he received a WhatsApp message from Khavee allegedly making a defamatory statement, stating that he and his brother should not have invited Hindu priests since they treated Muslims very badly.
He then lodged a complaint with the Chowk Police Station, and, thereafter, the police investigated the case and filed a chargesheet against the accused.
Appearing for Khavee, Advocate Ashok Mulage argued before the court that the allegation in the complaint was taken on its face value and the offence levelled against the petitioner would not be attracted.
On the other hand, Government Advocate Gopal Krishna B Yadav contended that the investigation was complete and the chargesheet had been filed, and that the proceedings could not be quashed.
Story continues below this ad
‘No offence has been’
The bench referred to Section 67 of the IT Act, which mandates punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
The court referred to the contents of the WhatsApp message, and said in the order, “The same reveals that the petitioner questioned the presence of Hindu religious priests in the inaugural ceremony of the function hall by stating that they treated Muslims very badly and also didn’t respect them.”
“On careful perusal of the provision (Section 67), the petitioner has not sent any such obscene messages, nor published nor transmitted any obscene messages to the complainant. The ingredients of Section 67 of the IT Act do not apply in the case at hand.”
Allowing the petition and quashing the prosecution and chargesheet, the court said, “After considering the entire allegation taken on its face value, no offence has been made out against the petitioner, for which he has been chargesheeted. The continuation of the proceedings is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court, and the same is liable to be quashed.”
