MP High Court: Quashes FIR Against YouTube Journalist Uvesh Khan

• The MP High Court quashed an FIR against YouTube journalist Uvesh Khan alias Uvesh Reporter.
• The FIR, under Section 196(1) BNS (formerly 153A IPC), alleged promoting communal disharmony through a Ganesh Visarjan report.
• The court ruled that merely reporting a violent incident does not constitute an offense, and general allegations of public outrage are insufficient for prosecution.
• The ruling emphasized that criminal intent and the promotion of enmity between at least two groups are essential for such charges.
• This decision reinforces press freedom, clarifying the high threshold for prosecuting journalists for factual reporting.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court firmly stated that the mere reporting of a violent incident does not, by itself, constitute an offense, and a generalized possibility of public outrage cannot justify criminal proceedings.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently intervened to quash a First Information Report (FIR) that had been lodged against a YouTube journalist, Uvesh Khan alias Uvesh Reporter. The FIR, identified as Crime No.328/2025, was registered on September 8, 2025, at Police Station Silwani in District Raisen, under Section 196(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which corresponds to the former Section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code.

The charges stemmed from a news report broadcast by Khan on September 6, 2025, concerning a violent incident that occurred during a Ganesh Visarjan procession in Silwani. The complaint alleged that Khan's reporting style created an atmosphere of fear and confusion within the Hindu community and possessed the potential to incite communal discord.

Khan initiated proceedings to quash the FIR by filing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which is the successor to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Representing Khan, Advocate Sankalp Kochar asserted that his client was a professional journalist, substantiating this claim with a UDYAM certificate and an appointment letter from DNN News Channel.

Kochar argued that the report merely documented a violent occurrence where two individuals sustained injuries. He further highlighted that a separate FIR, Crime No.324/2025, had already been registered at the same police station regarding an assault on Ramashankar Dixit during the identical procession, lending credence to Khan's report of an actual event. Khan had also submitted a representation on September 10, 2025, seeking the closure of the contested FIR. Conversely, Government Advocate Pramod Pandey, representing the State, opposed the plea, contending that the report pertained to a sensitive communal context requiring thorough investigation, a stance echoed by Advocate Raman Choubey, who appeared for the complainant.

Justice Himanshu Joshi, presiding over the Jabalpur bench, observed that Section 196(1) BNS largely mirrors the provisions of Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code. The Court underscored that the nature and content of the publication, its specific context, and the necessary link to the promotion or attempted promotion of enmity between groups are critical considerations in such cases.

Drawing upon established Supreme Court precedents, specifically Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, which itself referenced Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P., the Court reiterated that criminal intention is an indispensable element for the offense. It emphasized that the promotion of enmity must be demonstrably between at least two distinct groups or communities, clarifying that merely inciting the sentiments of a single community would not suffice to attract the provision.

Upon reviewing the facts, the Court noted that a screenshot of the report confirmed it dealt with an actual violent incident that occurred at two locations during the procession, resulting in two injuries. The existence of Crime No.324/2025 further supported the petitioner's assertion that his report was based on a real event. Crucially, the Court found that the allegations within the impugned FIR failed to pinpoint any specific words, expressions, or material in Khan's report that actively promoted or attempted to promote enmity between two communities. The assertions that the report generated fear and confusion were deemed general in nature.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court firmly stated that the mere reporting of a violent incident does not, by itself, constitute an offense, and a generalized possibility of public outrage cannot justify criminal proceedings. This ruling, which also balanced considerations of press freedom, clarifies the high threshold for prosecuting journalists under Section 196(1) BNS (formerly 153A IPC) for promoting enmity, underscoring that factual reporting of a violent incident, absent specific intent or words inciting hatred, is insufficient for such charges.

This ruling clarifies the high threshold for prosecuting journalists under Section 196(1) BNS (formerly 153A IPC) for promoting enmity, emphasizing that mere reporting of a violent incident without specific intent or words inciting hatred is insufficient. Lawyers defending media professionals should cite this precedent to challenge FIRs based on general allegations of public outrage, reinforcing press freedom in factual reporting.

Source: Original reporting via legal news.