The Karnataka High Court on Friday [September 18] quashed criminal proceedings under Section 67 Information Technology Act, initiated against a young student who had posted an allegedly offensive Instagram story showing a beer bottle, following the death of Kannada actor Puneeth Rajkumar. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 365]

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj, while issuing a stern warning to the youngster, allowed the petition which sought to quash the proceedings, arising out of an FIR registered by Subramanya Nagar Police Station back in 2021.

“There is no dispute about the posting of message on the Instagram handle of petitioner …It is not only the statement which is made that is required to be considered but the timing and context in which the statement was made... It is rather sad that such a post had been put up immediately after the expiry of well-respected film actor. The petitioner ought to have known that making such a statement at the relevant point of time and the context in which it was made-the said film actor being against the consumption of alcohol by younger persons -would have an effect…”, the court noted at the outset.

According to the prosecution, upon the death of the actor in 2021, the petitioner uploaded a picture on his Instagram account showing a Kingfisher beer bottle labelled with an offensive message.

The post was made immediately after the death of the well-respected film actor Puneeth Rajkumar. It is pertinent to note here that there was a ban on liquor sale immediately after the actor's death to prevent mishaps from grieving fans of the actor.

The complaint before the police also alleged that the post raised concern among the general public and affected public peace and harmony. A crime was registered for offences under Section 67 of the IT Act read with Section 153A of the IPC.

“…apart from that, the word used and the context in which it had been used would have come within the offence of Section 67. Taking into consideration that the petitioner was not a resident of India and had recently come to India, and is now pursuing the BA in a good University, the continuation of criminal proceedings would adversely affect his future career prospects.this court is of the opinion that leniency should be shown to him by warning him and directing the counsel for the petitioner to also advise him accordingly… As such, this court passes the following order…. criminal petition is allowed…criminal proceedings quashed with above observation…”, the court noted while disposing of the petition.

Before the High Court, the petitioner's counsel argued that the offence under Section 67 of the IT Act was not made out as the content was neither lascivious nor appealed to prurient interests, which are essential ingredients of Section 67.

It was also contended by the student that the post was not put up by the petitioner but by one of his friends.

The counsel further submitted that the petitioner was a good student studying BA Economics at Ashoka University, Sonepat, as well as a musician, and that the continuation of criminal proceedings would adversely affect his future career prospects.

At the most, the post was a 'case of bad taste', and that since the actor's name was a generic one, it could have very well been a reference to one of the student's friends, the counsel submitted before the court.

The court, however, was not inclined to accept the argument that the post was harmless.

During the hearing, the Court orally asked the counsel:

“…Why did you post this? Because you have access to social media... that you can post anything on social media... Is this the kind of post you can put up after his death? Son of Rajkumar had expired and you use this word [in the post]. You are not saying it out loud, that's all… It is not a generic word to be posted on social media. Rajkumar 'blank' can't stop us... whom does it refer to?”.

The court was also informed further that the petitioner was born and brought up in London, had come to India just six months prior to the incident, and was not aware of the consequences of his actions.

Case Title: Ritvik S. Sharma v. State by Subramanya Nagar Police Station

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 3845/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 365