The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a journalist under Section 196(1) BNS, which penalises promoting enmity between different groups, over a YouTube news report concerning a violent incident that occurred during the Ganesh Visarjan Procession in Raisen District. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 445]

The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed:

"In the facts alleged in the present case, the material placed on record does not disclose a prima facie case under Section 196(1) of the BNS. Continuation of the proceedings on the basis of the allegations as presently framed would, therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P/1), registered as Crime No.328/2025 at Police Station Silwani, District Raisen, for the offence punishable under Section 196(1) of the BNS, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the applicant, are hereby quashed".

The case arose from an FIR registered on September 8, 2025, in Raisen District against Uvesh Khan (applicant), who operates a YouTube news channel. The complainant alleged that, during the Ganesh Visarjan procession on September 6, 2025, the journalist broadcast a report concerning the incident in the town in a manner that created fear and confusion among members of the Hindu Community.

Challenging the FIR, the journalist submitted that he had merely reported a violent incident during the procession in which two persons sustained injuries. He also pointed out that a separate FIR had already been registered at the same police station concerning the alleged assault on a person named Ramashankar Dixit during the procession.

The petitioner argued that his report neither promoted enmity between communities nor contained any material indicating an intention to create communal disharmony. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 196 BNS were not satisfied.

Opposing the petition, the counsel for the State argued that the incident had occurred in a sensitive communal setting and that the effect and context of the publication required investigation. The complainant also opposed the quashing of the FIR.

The court noted that Section 196 of BNS corresponds to Section 153A of IPC, which penalizes acts that promote or attempt to promote disharmony, enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups on specified grounds.

In the present case, the bench noted the lack of material or specific words which demonstrate that the applicant's report promoted or attempted to promote enmity between communities. The bench noted:

"The assertions that the report created fear and confusion among members of a particular community and had the potential to provoke discord are general in nature. In the absence of specific allegations disclosing the essential ingredients of the offence, the mere possibility of public outrage or communal tension cannot, by itself, justify the continuation of criminal proceedings under the aforesaid provision".

However, the bench further emphasized that the applicant's status as a journalist does not confer immunity from criminal prosecution where the ingredients of an offence are otherwise made out. The bench highlighted,

"Equally, the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed 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".

Thus, the bench allowed the petition and quashed the FIR.

For Applicant: Advocate Sankalp Kochar

For State: Government Advocate Pramod Pandey

For Respondent no 2: Advocate Raman Choubey