Sonu Nigam Kannada Controversy | Sonu Nigam got relief from Karnataka High Court in Kannada language dispute case

National Award winner singer Sonu Nigam was surrounded by Kannada language dispute recently. It started with a musical concert in Bangalore, where the actors’ words allegedly hurt people’s feelings and the matter was pulled to the court. Sonu Nigam had approached the High Court regarding the FIR lodged against him. The Karnataka High Court has directed that no strict action is taken against the singer, provided they keep cooperating in the investigation. Let us tell you that the institutions associated with Kannada language had filed an FIR against Sonu Nigam. After which Sonu Nigam appealed to the High Court.

The Karnataka High Court has directed that no punitive steps should be taken against the singer Sonu Nigam till the next hearing in a case. The case is recently in connection with the criminal case filed against the corporation for allegedly making objectionable remarks during a concert. The court also allowed the singer to record his statement through a video conference if necessary for the investigating officer (IO). The court said that if the IOs alternatively insist on appearing personally, the officers can go to the corporation, which the singer will have to bear.

The case relates to the complaint lodged after the incident at a concert, where some Kannada -speaking people requested the corporation to sing in Kannada. The singer allegedly objected to the accent of the listeners’ request and commented, “That is why Pahalgam was done.” During the hearing, the corporation’s lawyer Dhananjay Vidyapati argued that the complaint was filed only for campaigning and the alleged public mischief under Section 505 of the IPC does not become an alleged crime. He also said that it was a single incident, the concert went on smoothly and the complaint was lodged by the third party. However, the state counsel said that the intention needs to be detected during the investigation of Sonu Nigam’s comments. He said, “Whether or not the comments were deliberately made, it cannot be decided under Section 482 (CRPC). He has not cooperated in the investigation. He could at least say that he was busy. ”

Arguing against privileges, the state lawyer said, “The person who does not respect the proper procedure of law cannot be benefited under Section 482 … he is not a normal person, but that is why they should not have made such a statement.” When the court asked why the corporation’s statement cannot be recorded in a virtual manner or at their residence, then the state would be like it. In view of the concerns raised by the corporation’s lawyer in the media after his personal appearance, the court said, “If you want his direct appearance, you go to his house and record his statement.” They can bear the expenses. ”The court filed the state’s argument that no punitive steps will be taken if the corporation cooperates in the investigation. He prohibited the filing of any final report till the date of the next hearing in the case.