Police must undertake a preliminary enquiry under section 173 (3) in cases where complaint doesn’t constitute a cognizable offencepunishable with more than 3 years.

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Police must undertake...

In the case of Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat 2025 INSC 410, the Supreme Court quashed an FIR against the appellant, a Rajya Sabha MP, for reciting and posting a poem at a public event. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 196, 197(1), 299, 302, and 57 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, claiming the poem incited hatred and undermined national unity. The Court held that the FIR was filed mechanically, lacked legal substance, and violated the appellant’s fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a).

After scrutinizing the Urdu poem and its translation, the Court found no reference to any religion, community, or incitement to violence. It emphasized that the poem conveyed a message of non-violence and resilience against injustice. The Court ruled that no offence was made out under the cited BNS provisions and criticized the High Court for ignoring constitutional safeguards. Highlighting the need for a preliminary inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS before registering such FIR’s.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

When machines pollute knowledge: legal implications of AI data contamination in the indian context

The exponential rise of generative artificial intelligence has redefined how digital information is created and consumed. However, this rapid advancement has also contaminated the global data environment. Large language models and other generative systems increasingly train on data drawn from the internet , much of which already... Read more »

Supreme Court Overrules Azeez Basha: Reframes Minority Institution Criteria in Aligarh Muslim University Case

In AMU v. Naresh Agarwal (2024 INSC 856), a 4:3 Constitution Bench overruled Azeez Basha (1967), holding that an institution does not lose minority status merely because it was created by statute. Chief Justice Chandrachud clarified that “establishment” under Article 30(1) depends on the community’s role in founding it, not on statutory incorporation, and set... Read more » Read more »

Inheritance Rights of Children from Void/Voidable Marriages.

Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2023 INSC 783) The Supreme Court in this case clarified the legal ambiguity surrounding the inheritance rights of children born from void or voidable marriages. The appeal came about in response to a Karnataka High Court decision in which the children of a man’s second (and void) marriage asked for part of... Read more » Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.