Karnataka High Court Quashes Second FIR Against BJP MLA Basanagouda Patil Over Speech About Prophet Muhammad

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a second FIR registered against senior BJP MLA Basanagouda R. Patil (Yatnal) over an alleged speech on Muslim Prophet, delivered during a Ramanavami event in Hubballi last year. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 434]

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held that since an earlier FIR registered in Vijayapura on the exact same speech had already been quashed, the subsequent FIR cannot survive.

The court, referring to previous judgment, further iterated that the police had failed to consider the meaning of the spoken words before registering the FIR, which is a mandatory requirement as per the Apex Court's rulings in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat and Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra.

“…The second crime on the same incident must tumble down for the very reason of quashment of the crime in Crime No.80 of 2025…”, the Court stated, pointing out that the earlier order had attained finality.

While allowing the petition, the court highlighted the apex court's precedents on invoking penal provisions related to promoting enmity and outraging religious sentiments. The court, in the previous FIR on the same speech had opined that the police had failed to apply their minds to the meaning of the spoken words.

For context, the sitting MLA from Vijayapura, had in April 2025, on the occasion of Ramanavami, allegedly made statements against Prophet Muhammed and Islam. According to the complainant who is a resident of Vijayapura, such untrue statements statement had hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims. The specific statement, as per the complaint, was that ' Muhammed The Prophet was born in the house of Balasaheb Thackeray', purportedly referring to Uddhav Thackeray of Shiv Sena (UBT).

The Hubballi FIR was registered by the police for offences under Sections 196(1) (promoting enmity between different groups), 299 (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), and 353(1) (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Even before that, the Gandhi Chowk Police Station had registered a FIR on the same speech. This FIR was stayed initially. The subsequent FIR was a ploy to keep the criminal proceedings active according to the sitting MLA.

In the first FIR, the court had previously held that for offences under Sections 196 and 299 of the BNS to be made out, the words used must have the tendency to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity. It had emphasized that the effect of spoken words must be judged based on the standards of 'reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals'; it should not be according to the standards of 'people with weak and oscillating minds', the court had said.

Referring to the said judgment quashing the first FIR, the court added:

“…Therefore, there are two crimes registered on the same fulcrum. Insofar as the crime in Crime No.80 of 2025 which was subject matter of Criminal Petition No.5628 of 2025, this Court has disposed of the same in terms of its order dated 20-08-2026…”, the court said.

Before the High Court, Advocate Girish Bharadwaj, appearing for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the crime was deliberately registered in two different jurisdictions to frustrate the protection granted by the High Court. He argued that there was no disharmony generated by the statement, and that the matter was completely covered by apex court precedents.

Advocate R. Kothwal, appearing for the complainant argued that the petitioner's statements, on the face of it, created communal disharmony. According to him, the matter cannot be closed at the threshold merely because another crime on the same

Allowing the criminal petition, the Court ordered:

“…FIR in Crime No.51 of 2025 registered by Hubballi Town Police Station on 17-04-2025 and pending before the JMFC I Court, Hubli stands quashed…”