The Karnataka High Court has granted interim relief to singer Sonu Nigam by staying the filing of the final report in a criminal case registered against him over his alleged objectionable remark during a live music concert in Bengaluru. The case pertains to an incident where Nigam was reportedly asked to sing Kannada songs by some members of the audience, following which he made a statement that led to controversy.
A vacation bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar issued notice to the respondents and directed them to submit their statement of objections. The bench observed:
"Till the next date of hearing, filing of final report is stayed, there shall be no coercive steps against the petitioner, if he cooperates with investigation."
The court also allowed the singer to give his statement to the police via video-conference. If the investigating officer insists on recording the statement in person, the judge said that the expenses incurred for the officer’s travel and stay at Nigam's location must be borne by the petitioner.
Sonu Nigam has been booked under Sections 351(2) (criminal intimidation), 352(1) (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 353 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Seeking to quash the FIR, Nigam approached the High Court.
Appearing for the singer, Senior Advocate Dhananjay Joshi, along with Advocate Kavitha Damodaran, submitted that the statement made by Nigam did not cause any disruption or mischief. The performance continued as planned even after the statement.
In response to a query from the court about the presence of the complainant during the incident, the counsel stated:
Opposing the plea, Additional State Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha argued that the event was streamed live and that clips of the statement were widely circulated on Instagram. He added that other courts have recently taken strict action in similar cases.
“Yesterday, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took suo motu cognisance against a Minister for making comments on Col. Sophiya Qureshi. Today, the Supreme Court has refused to grant any relief,” the prosecutor noted.
The prosecutor further submitted that notices had been sent to Nigam via email and registered post, but he failed to respond or cooperate with the investigation. It was also argued that the petitioner did not even acknowledge receipt of the notice in his submissions. However, the prosecutor assured the court that no coercive action would be taken if Nigam cooperates with the investigation.
Following this, the court recorded the submissions and passed the interim order to stay the filing of the final report.
Later during the proceedings, the counsel for the petitioner requested that Nigam be allowed to send his statement by post. The lawyer said:Let the petitioner make the statement by post. He is a celebrity and if he comes to the city there will be tamasha.
However, the State opposed this request and urged the court to direct the singer to appear in person. The judge did not accept the proposal to send the statement by post but agreed that the singer is not a common person.
the court observed and gave the option for the police to record Nigam’s statement via video-conference or in person at his location, provided that he bears the costs involved.
The case is titled Sonu Nigam v. State of Karnataka and is registered as Criminal Petition No. 6616 of 2025.
Senior Advocate Dhananjay Joshi appeared for the petitioner along with Advocate Kavitha Damodaran, while Additional State Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha represented the respondent.
