Bollywood – Ranveer Singh Moves High Court Over Kantara FIR
Bollywood – Bollywood actor Ranveer Singh has approached the Karnataka High Court seeking relief from a criminal complaint and an FIR lodged against him over comments made during a public event that allegedly hurt religious sentiments connected to the Daiva tradition depicted in the film Kantara: Chapter 1.
Petition Filed Before Karnataka High Court
Singh’s legal team has filed a criminal petition before the High Court of Karnataka, asking the court to quash both the private complaint pending before a Bengaluru magistrate and the FIR registered by the High Grounds Police Station. The respondents in the case include the High Grounds police authorities and advocate Prashanth Methal, who initiated the complaint.
The matter was mentioned before Justice M. Nagaprasanna on February 23, when Singh’s counsel sought an urgent hearing. The lawyer argued that the actor’s remarks at a film festival had been misconstrued and unfairly framed as criminal in nature. According to the defense, Singh had intended to praise actor Rishab Shetty’s performance in Kantara: Chapter 1, not insult any religious belief.
Court Questions Urgency of Hearing
During the proceedings, counsel representing the complainant also pressed for immediate consideration of the case. The bench, however, questioned the grounds for urgency. The court observed that celebrity status alone could not justify expedited listing, reportedly remarking whether similar urgency would apply if the individuals involved were from another film industry.
Singh’s legal representatives informed the court that police had already issued two notices to the actor after registering the FIR, which, they said, made an early hearing necessary. Taking this submission into account, the court agreed to hear the matter on Tuesday.
Origin of the Dispute
The controversy stems from remarks made by Singh at the closing ceremony of the International Film Festival of India held in Goa last year. While applauding Rishab Shetty’s performance, Singh referred to a particular scene from the film, describing it in a manner that some viewers later interpreted as offensive.
Advocate Prashanth Methal alleged in his complaint that Singh’s statement amounted to mockery of the Daiva tradition and included a reference to Goddess Chamundi that he described as derogatory. According to Methal, the comments deeply hurt the religious sentiments of many Hindus.
Steps Taken by the Complainant
Methal stated that he first approached the High Grounds Police Station in early December 2025, but no FIR was registered at that stage. He subsequently submitted written representations to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central Division) and the Bengaluru City Police Commissioner, seeking action. When those efforts did not yield results, he filed a private complaint before a magistrate under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
In his petition, Methal cited provisions under Sections 196, 299, and 302 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, asserting that the alleged acts constituted cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment of up to three years, a fine, or both.
Magistrate Orders Investigation
On January 28, 2026, the magistrate directed an investigation under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and instructed the High Grounds Police Inspector to proceed in accordance with the law. Under this provision, the police are required to register an FIR before initiating an inquiry.
Following the court’s directive, the High Grounds Police registered the FIR and issued notices to Singh as part of the investigation process.
Public Reaction and Apology
Clips from the film festival event circulated widely on social media, prompting mixed reactions. While some users defended the actor, others criticized his remarks as insensitive. In the wake of the backlash, Singh issued a public apology, expressing regret if his comments had caused hurt.
The Karnataka High Court is now set to examine whether the complaint and the subsequent FIR warrant continuation of criminal proceedings or should be set aside. The outcome of Tuesday’s hearing is expected to determine the next course of action in the case.