Maharashtra Cyber Police Files FIR Against Influencers Over 370 Biryani Controversy Under BNS

Maharashtra Cyber Police has registered FIR No. 36/2026 at the Nodal Cyber Police Station against comedian Pranit More, audience member Himanshu Jangra, and doctor Sejal Pawar in connection with the viral '370 Biryani' controversy. The FIR invokes Sections 75(1)(iv), 75(3), 294, and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Separately, the National Commission for Women (NCW) issued notices to the accused, and Gurugram Police has also filed a case under the IT Act and BNS provisions.

The Incident and Viral Controversy

The controversy arose from a comedy show hosted by Pranit More in Gurugram, where audience member Himanshu Jangra made remarks that went viral on social media. Clips from the show, which allegedly contained objectionable and obscene remarks involving women and references to deceased persons, were widely circulated across YouTube, Instagram, and other platforms. The title '370 Biryani' became a trending topic, drawing public outrage and regulatory attention.

Maharashtra Cyber Police stated that the content circulating across these platforms was obscene and objectionable under Indian law. The police also alleged that clips from the programme were recorded and monetised to gain online traction and commercial benefit, which is a relevant factor under Section 67 of the IT Act, which criminalises the publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form.

Legal Provisions Invoked

The FIR invokes multiple provisions from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code on July 1, 2024. Section 75(1)(iv) of the BNS deals with acts done with the intent to outrage the modesty of a woman through words, gestures, or sounds. Section 75(3) addresses sexual harassment through electronic means. Section 294 deals with obscene acts and songs in public places. Section 353(2) of the BNS penalises statements conducing to public mischief.

Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 makes it an offence to publish or transmit obscene material in electronic form. First-time offenders face imprisonment of up to three years and a fine of up to Rs 5 lakh. For subsequent convictions, the punishment extends to five years and Rs 10 lakh. This provision is frequently invoked alongside the BNS provisions for online content offences.

NCW's Intervention and Gurugram FIR

The National Commission for Women (NCW) took suo motu cognisance of the matter after the clips went viral. The NCW issued notices to Pranit More, Himanshu Jangra, and the venue owner, directing them to appear before the Commission. The NCW's intervention is significant because it underscores the Commission's expanding role in addressing online content that degrades women.

Separately, Gurugram Police registered a case at DLF Phase-2 Police Station following a complaint received from the NCW. This FIR was lodged under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Sections 294, 353(3), 75(2), and 75(3) of the BNS. The filing of parallel FIRs in Maharashtra and Haryana raises questions about jurisdictional overlap in cyber crime cases, a topic addressed in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita's zero FIR provisions.

Broader Implications for Content Creators

This case highlights the growing legal risk for content creators, comedians, and influencers who operate in the space between free speech and legally actionable content. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), including restrictions in the interest of decency and morality, and public order.

The distinction between humour and obscenity is not always clear-cut. Courts have held that the test for obscenity under Indian law is whether the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest or is grossly offensive by contemporary community standards. Content creators who perform for live audiences and subsequently distribute recordings online face dual liability: under general criminal law for the live performance, and under the IT Act for the electronic dissemination.

The monetisation aspect is particularly relevant. When content is not merely shared but actively monetised through platforms, it strengthens the prosecution's case that the publication was deliberate and for commercial gain, which is an aggravating factor under Section 67 of the IT Act.

Related Reading

For related analysis: BNS 2023: Key Changes from IPC Every Citizen Must Know. Also see BNSS 2023: The New Criminal Procedure Code and Cyber Crime Offences Under IT Act 2000.

Key Takeaways

1. Maharashtra Cyber Police registered FIR No. 36/2026 under BNS Sections 75(1)(iv), 75(3), 294, 353(2) and Section 67 IT Act against three persons in the '370 Biryani' controversy.

2. Gurugram Police filed a parallel case following an NCW complaint, raising jurisdictional overlap questions in cyber crime prosecution.

3. Section 67 IT Act penalises publication of obscene material online, with first-offence punishment of up to three years and Rs 5 lakh fine.

4. Content creators face dual liability for live performances and their subsequent electronic distribution, particularly when content is monetised.

5. The NCW's suo motu intervention signals increasing regulatory attention to online content that degrades women, even when framed as comedy.