High Court quashes enmity FIR over a WhatsApp status posted after the 2024 election result
Subramanya police in Dakshina Kannada registered an FIR under Section 505(2) IPC after a party worker complained about a man's WhatsApp status on the 2024 Lok Sabha result. The Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR on 11 September 2026. It held a WhatsApp status seen by one's contacts is not publication or circulation, and showed no intent to cause disorder.
This page records what the cited court records and reports say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →The FIR in Crime No. 38/2024 stands quashed.
What happened
The High Court recorded that a Congress party worker complained on 07.06.2024 that the man's WhatsApp status on 05.06.2024 about the election result created enmity between communities, and that Subramanya Police registered Crime No. 38/2024 under Section 505(2) IPC.
The High Court held that a careful reading of the status disclosed no intention or motive to cause disorder or incite people to violence.
The High Court held that a WhatsApp status is not a public forum and is normally visible only to people in the user's contact list, so the ingredient of publication or circulation was absent.
The High Court held that continuing the case was an abuse of process and quashed the FIR.
What the record says
“Moreover, the same was posted in WhatsApp status, which is neither a social media platform nor any public forum and it is accessible normally to people who are in his contact list.”
Criminal Petition No. 5909 of 2024, Karnataka High Court, order dated 11.09.2026 — read the full text
Punished for a freedom
A man was booked for a WhatsApp status shared with his contacts, which the court found was neither public circulation nor an incitement to violence.
What we could not confirm
The order is dated 11 September and was reported on 24 September 2026. The status text is not reproduced here; the court found it did not show intent to cause disorder.