Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against 24-Year-Old Over Social Media Post After Undertaking Filed

Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed a Mangaluru South police FIR against Afeefa Fathima after she filed an affidavit undertaking to delete the posts and exercise restraint on social media.

The High Court of Karnataka, sitting at Bengaluru, has quashed an FIR registered by Mangaluru South Police Station against Afeefa Fathima, a 24-year-old resident of Bantwal in Dakshina Kannada district, over posts she allegedly published on the social media platform “X” (formerly Twitter). Justice M. Nagaprasanna, sitting singly, passed an oral order on 23 June 2026 allowing the Criminal Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The decisive factor was a sworn affidavit of undertaking filed by the petitioner, in which she regretted any misunderstanding caused, denied any intent to promote enmity, and committed to deleting the offending posts and exercising restraint in future social media use.

The FIR and the Charges

Crime No. 78/2025 was registered by Mangaluru South Police Station against Afeefa Fathima for offences punishable under Sections 196(1)(a) and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The case was pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class II Court, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada district.

Section 196(1)(a) of the BNS deals with promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language and so forth, and Section 353(2) pertains to statements conducing to public mischief. The FIR arose from posts the petitioner allegedly made on her personal account on platform “X.” Those posts, according to the prosecution, were derogatory and formed the core of the crime registered against her.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS — the successor provision to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — seeking to quash the FIR in its entirety. She contended that the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, did not prima facie make out the offences charged against her.

The Affidavit of Undertaking

Rather than contesting the merits at length, the petitioner's counsel placed before the court an affidavit of undertaking sworn by Afeefa Fathima. In it, she stated that the posts arose from her personal social media account and that the allegations did not constitute the offences alleged. She denied making any hate speech or posting content with an intention to promote enmity or hurt the sentiments of any religion, community, or the nation.

The affidavit acknowledged that if any post had been perceived as offensive or caused misunderstanding, she “sincerely regret[ted] the same.” Importantly, she stopped short of admitting guilt, stating expressly that nothing in the affidavit should be construed as an admission or acceptance of the allegations.

On the question of future conduct, the petitioner “solemnly undertake[d]” to exercise utmost care, caution, and restraint in using social media platforms and guaranteed that no situation giving rise to similar allegations would recur on account of her conduct. Her counsel also undertook before the court that all posts then appearing in her account that depicted the impugned content would be deleted.

The petitioner had also pointed out to the court that continuation of investigation while the petition was pending would expose her to coercive steps such as repeated summons, seizure of electronic devices, and collection of personal digital data — measures that could render the relief she sought largely ineffective.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Nagaprasanna did not elaborate at length on the merits of the FIR. The court's reasoning turned on the affidavit itself. The judge found it appropriate, in the light of the undertaking, to “obliterate the crime” against the petitioner.

The court directed that all posts in the petitioner's account that depicted the impugned conduct be deleted, and recorded the undertaking given by her counsel to that effect. No separate conditions beyond the deletion of posts and the terms of the sworn undertaking were imposed.

The court did, however, add a clear caveat: any breach of the undertaking contained in the affidavit would be “viewed seriously.” That observation places the petitioner under continuing obligation even after the FIR is formally extinguished.

Outcome

Criminal Petition No. 8108 of 2026 was allowed. Crime No. 78/2025, pending on the file of the JMFC II Court, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, stands quashed insofar as it pertains to the petitioner Afeefa Fathima. The second respondent, Mohammed Aslam, Front Office Manager at Highland Hospital, Mangaluru, who was arrayed as the complainant, was represented through the High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State; no separate order was made with respect to him. The undertaking filed by the petitioner remains on record, and any violation of it will be treated accordingly by the court.