Filming video not crime: Himachal Pradesh High Court junks FIR against man who recorded brawl at police post
Merely recording a video is not an offence, the Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled while quashing the case, citing lack of assault or unlawful conduct under BNS provisions.
5 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Apr 23, 2026 05:24 PM IST
As a quarrel broke out at the police post, a constable was pushed, another was injured and some property was damaged, even as the petitioner recorded the incident. (Image generated using AI)
Himachal Pradesh High Court news: Holding that merely recording a quarrel between two groups and the police does not amount to a criminal offence, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR against a man who was accused of obstructing police duties, while noting the absence of any unlawful activity under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Hearing the plea by the man, who claimed to be a journalist, Justice Rakesh Kainthlanoted that the status report nowhere mentions that the petitioner had caused any hurt to any police officer with the intent to deter him from discharging his duties, and held that the state’s claim that he obstructed police duty was not sustainable.
“It was submitted that the petitioner had not produced any document showing that he was a journalist….submission will not help the State because even if the petitioner were not a journalist, video recording the incident did not constitute any offence,” the April 21 order noted.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla said the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted to be correct, do not constitute the commission of any cognisable offence.
Recording of incident
It came on record that on April 9, 2025, petitioner Abhishek Kumar, with his bother along with others, arrived at the police post to complain about threats by a liquor contractor from Punjab.
Allegedly, another group arrived at the post and got involved in the confrontation that followed, leading to a heated argument between the two sides.
The petitioner began recording the incident, and despite police intervention, both sides continued quarrelling, allegedly disrupting official duties.
During the quarrel, two people began fighting while others tried to enter the police post.
In the chaos, a constable named Yusuf Deen was allegedly pushed, property was damaged, and Surender Singh, the head constable, was injured.
The petitioner remained inside, continuing to record the incident.
Subsequently, the matter was reported to the police, and an FIR was registered.
Aggrieved by the FIR, Kumar asserted that he had been working as a journalist since 2022, and was present there to cover the news events.
Advocate Ram Lal Thakur, representing the petitioner, submitted that his client had not caused any interruption to the police in the discharge of their duties. Thakur submitted that even if the FIR allegations were true, no cognisable offence was made out against the petitioner, and sought quashing of the FIR and proceedings.
Deputy Advocate General Ajit Sharma, representing the state, opposed the petitioner’s plea, stating that he failed to prove that he was a journalist and left the spot, and allegedly later threatened suicide in a live video, and was hospitalised.
Sharma asserted that the petitioner was not there as a journalist and was involved in the commission of the offence with the other accused. He further submitted that the court should not interfere with the matter and should leave it to the trial court.
Recording does not constitute offence: Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that there was no evidence that any assault or criminal force was caused to the police by the petitioner.
The status report shows the petitioner was only recording the incident, which does not establish an offence under Section 132 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from the discharge of his duty) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Underlining BNS Section 121(1), which punishes a person who voluntarily causes hurt or grievous hurt to deter a public servant from his duty, the court said the report nowhere mentions that the petitioner had caused any hurt to any police official with the intent to deter him from discharging his duties.
Hence, the allegation in the FIR does not satisfy the requirements of Section 121(1).
While BNS Section 190 deals with members of an unlawful assembly, Section 191 (2) pertains to rioting, and the report suggests that the petitioner was only recording the incident, and did not cause any hurt to any person or damage to any property, the Himachal Pradesh High Court noted.
It also observed that the petitioner’s failure to produce a document supporting his status as a journalist was immaterial.
Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights.
She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life.
Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach.
Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More
Justice Rakesh Kainthla said the allegations in the FIR, even if accepted to be correct, do not constitute the commission of any cognisable offence.