Nagpur: In a significant legal development, a Nagpur court has acquitted social media vlogger Faris Kadri, whose name is recorded in the court judgment as Faris Nijamuddin Kadari, of all charges related to an alleged incident at Tahsil Police Station in June 2024. The court granted him the benefit of doubt, observing that the prosecution had failed to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.
The judgment was delivered on October 29, 2026, by Additional Sessions Judge-20 Pankaj S. Pandey in Sessions Case No. 695/2025.
The case originated from Crime No. 355/2024 registered at Tahsil Police Station following an alleged incident during the early hours of June 8, 2024. Kadri was charged under Sections 353, 186, 504 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
The allegations included using criminal force against a public servant, obstructing government officials from performing their duties, intentional insult and damaging public property.
What happened at Tahsil Police Station?
According to the prosecution, Faris Kadri had accompanied a friend to Tahsil Police Station, where he allegedly interfered with the process of recording a complaint. He was accused of snatching papers and abusing police personnel during the incident.
The prosecution further alleged that after being taken into another room, Kadri threw a chair towards a wall-mounted television screen and a computer, causing damage to government property.
The estimated value of the equipment was stated to be approximately ₹1.20 lakh.
However, during the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, while the defence examined one witness. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the court concluded that the allegations could not be established through reliable evidence.
No conclusive evidence of assault on police personnel
While examining the charge of assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant, the court observed that the prosecution had failed to establish that Kadri had committed any such act against the informant.
The allegations regarding the snatching of papers were also found to be uncertain.
The court further noted that CCTV footage from the police station had not been produced during the trial. Such footage could have played an important role in independently establishing what had actually happened inside the police station.
Court questions evidence of obstruction and intentional insult
Regarding the charge under Section 186 of the IPC, the court observed that taking cognizance on the basis of a police report was barred by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Apart from this legal issue, the prosecution had also failed to establish that Kadri had actually obstructed public servants while they were discharging their official duties.
On the charge of intentional insult under Section 504 IPC, the court found that the prosecution had not established the specific abusive words allegedly used by the accused or the circumstances necessary to demonstrate that the alleged insult was likely to provoke a breach of public peace.
Television and computer not produced before court
One of the major weaknesses in the prosecution’s case concerned the alleged damage to government property.
The prosecution claimed that a television screen and computer installed at the police station had been damaged during the incident. However, neither of the allegedly damaged electronic items was seized during the investigation or produced before the court.
The explanation that the equipment remained operational and continued to be used did not establish the actual nature or extent of the alleged damage.
The court also observed that supporting records to substantiate the claimed financial loss were not produced.
The photographs submitted by the prosecution were also excluded from consideration because they had not been properly proved. The photographer was not examined, and the mandatory certificate required for electronic evidence had not been submitted.
Similarly, the person who issued the repair quotation was not examined before the court.
The court pointed out that the amount of ₹1.20 lakh mentioned in the FIR represented the stated value of the equipment and not the actual damage proved during the trial. Another figure of ₹38,500 cited in connection with the damage was also not supported by adequate evidence.
Panch witness fails to support prosecution
The prosecution suffered another setback when the spot panch witness did not support its version.
The witness denied that the spot panchnama had been prepared in his presence at the actual scene of the alleged incident.
This further weakened the prosecution’s evidence regarding the alleged damage to public property.
Faris Kadri acquitted of all charges
After considering the evidence and legal arguments, the court acquitted Faris Kadri of all the charges, extending the benefit of doubt due to the failure of the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Importantly, the judgment clarified that the acquittal was based on insufficient evidence and legal deficiencies in the prosecution’s case. It did not amount to a finding that the original allegations were false or vexatious.
The court also cancelled Kadri’s existing bail bonds and discharged the surety. However, it directed him to execute a bond of ₹25,000 with one surety under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), ensuring his appearance before a higher court, if required, for a period of six months.
Advocate Meer Nagman Ali represented Faris Kadri during the proceedings.
The acquittal brings the trial proceedings in the 2024 Tahsil Police Station case to a close, with the court emphasising the importance of reliable evidence and compliance with legal procedures before criminal charges can result in a conviction.
