3 min readJan 22, 2026 07:28 PM IST
First published on: Jan 22, 2026 at 07:28 PM IST
The Karnataka High Court Thursday rejected two petitions filed by Congress leader Rajeev Gowda, seeking to quash FIRs registered against him for allegedly abusing and threatening the municipal commissioner over the phone for removing “unauthorised” banners at Shidlaghatta in the Chikkaballapur district.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, in his order, noted that the relief of quashing was sought by the petitioner within five days of registration of the FIR, even when the investigation was yet to “meaningfully unfold”.
Following public complaints about the unauthorised display of flexes/banners in the town promoting a Kannada film, the municipal corporation removed the illegal banners. Gowda is said to have called Amrutha Gowda, Municipal Commissioner, to complain, and allegedly shouted expletives at the official, demanding that the banner be returned to its original location.
The police registered a case under Section 132 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which pertains to assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from the discharge of his duty and other provisions under the Act.
Senior Advocate Vivek Subba Reddy, appearing for Gowda, contended that there was no criminal force used by the Congress leader to stop a public servant from performing their duties. He also submitted that the accused was willing to tender a public apology.
Additional State Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha submitted that the investigation into the matter was at an initial stage, and Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) could be invoked by the police during the investigation into the words spoken by Rajeev Gowda.
Rejecting the Congress leader’s contention about the charges invoked in the FIR as not being proper, the bench said, “It is always open to the investigating officer, in the course of investigation, to seek appropriate permission from the jurisdictional Court, for addition of offences, should the material so warrant.”
Referring to the transcript of the conversation between Rajeev Gowda and the municipal commissioner, and the complaint placed on record by the prosecution, the bench said, “The language and tenor attributed to the petitioner would, prima facie, disclose offences under Section 79 of the BNS.”
The bench was surprised that FIR did not contain the said provision.
Section 79 of BNS mandates that whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object in any form, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.
The court also highlighted that legislators are expected to be circumspect and restrained in their speech, particularly when addressing a woman, a public servant, who is only discharging her statutory duty.
Dismissing the petition, the court said, “At the very least, the language employed deserves investigation, as it is a settled principle of law that an FIR is not an encyclopaedia of offences.”
The court also suggested that the state government strictly enforce the law against illegal banners/flexes/placard
Gowda is said to have called Amrutha Gowda, Municipal Commissioner, to complain, and allegedly shouted expletives at the official, demanding that the banner be returned to its original location. (File photo) 
Share
