Karnataka High Court Closes FIR Against Ranveer Singh

Date:

Court records unconditional apology over ‘Kantara’ mimicry remarks and directs actor to visit Shri Chamundeshwari Temple, Mysuru, within four weeks

Criminal Proceedings Closed

The Karnataka High Court has closed criminal proceedings against Bollywood actor Ranveer Singh.

The case concerned allegations that he hurt religious sentiments during a mimicry performance linked to the daiva/deity depicted in the movie Kantara.

A single-judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna recorded Singh’s affidavit.

In the affidavit, the actor tendered an unconditional apology.

The Court also directed him to visit Shri Chamundeshwari Temple in Mysuru within four weeks to offer prayers.

Court Records Apology

The Court noted Singh’s apology and undertaking.

Therefore, it held that the proceedings could be closed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

The Bench directed Singh to visit the temple within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

FIR Over IFFI Mimicry

The plea arose from an FIR registered against Singh.

The FIR related to his mimicry of a character from Kantara: Chapter 1 during the 56th IFFI Festival of India.

The Government of Goa had organised the festival last year.

At the event, Singh allegedly mimicked actor Rishab Shetty’s role in the movie.

He was also alleged to have referred to the Chamundeshwari temple deity as a “female ghost”.

Actor’s Affidavit

Earlier, the Court had indicated that it would not decide the legal issues in the matter.

This was because Singh had already tendered an unconditional apology.

In his affidavit, Singh said that he had unintentionally and inadvertently offended the sentiments of communities worshipping the deity Chavundi Daiva.

He expressed regret for the same.

Further, he stated that he had the deepest respect and regard for the Hindu religion in all its manifestations.

He also said that he respected all religions and communities across the world, including those in Karnataka.

In addition, Singh stated that he would visit Shri Chamundeshwari Temple in Mysuru.

He said he would offer prayers and express his devotion there.

Court Cautions Actor

While closing the matter, Justice Nagaprasanna cautioned Singh against repeating such conduct.

The Court observed that any repetition of the kind projected in the petition would be viewed seriously.

FIR And Offences Alleged

Singh had challenged the FIR registered by High Grounds Police Station in Crime No. 17/2026.

The FIR was based on a complaint filed by Advocate Prashanth Methel.

The complaint alleged offences under Sections 196, 299 and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Section 196 deals with promoting enmity between different groups.

It covers grounds such as religion, race, place of birth, residence and language.

It also deals with acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony.

Section 299 concerns deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.

It applies when a person insults the religion or religious beliefs of any class.

Section 302 deals with words uttered with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings.

Magistrate Order Also Challenged

Singh also sought quashing of the January 23 order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

The Magistrate had passed the order under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Through that order, the Magistrate had directed investigation into the complaint against the actor.

Earlier, the High Court had stayed coercive steps against Singh.

At that stage, the Court had orally remarked that a celebrity cannot hurt the religious sentiments of a community.

It also said that public figures must remain cautious about their words and actions during public appearances.

Case Details

Case Title: Shri Ranveer Singh v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No.: CRL.P 3024/2026
Court: Karnataka High Court
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna

Appearances

For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya
For Respondent No. 1: Additional SPP B.N. Jagadeesha
For Respondent No. 2 / Complainant Prashanth Mehthel: Advocate Siji Malayil

spot_img

Share post:

Popular

More like this
Related

Supreme Court Acquits Former Clerk in Bribery Case

The Supreme Court has stressed that Bribery Demand Proof...

Supreme Court Examines Shiv Sena Symbol Dispute

The Supreme Court has raised a key question in...

Supreme Court Upholds Excess Pay Recovery From NIT Calicut Teachers

The Supreme Court has upheld the Recovery of Excess...

Higher Marks Cannot Cure Lack of Essential Qualification: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that an Essential Recruitment...