Controversy of Sonu Nigam Kannada | Sonu Nigam obtained a repair of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of disputes of the language of Kannada

The singer of the National Award, Sonu Nigam, was recently surrounded by the dispute of the language of Kannada. It started with a music concert in Bangalore, where the words of the actors would have harmed people’s feelings and the case was brought to the court. Sonu Nigam had approached the high court concerning the FIR deposited against him. The High Court of Karnataka ordered that no strict action is taken against the singer, provided they continue to cooperate in the investigation. Let us tell you that the institutions associated with the Kannada language had filed a FIR against Sonu Nigam. After which Sonu Nigam appealed to the High Court.

The High Court of Karnataka has ordered that no punitive measure should be taken against the Sonu Nigam singer until the next hearing in a case. The case is recently within the framework of the criminal case filed against the company for having allegedly made reprehensible comments during a concert. The court also authorized the singer to record his declaration through a video conference if necessary for the investigating officer (IO). The court said that if the iOS alternately insists on appearing personally, the officers can go to the company, which the singer will have to bear.

The case concerns the complaint filed after the incident during a concert, where some people from Kannada asked the company to sing in Kannada. The singer would have opposed the emphasis on listeners’ demand and would have commented: “This is why Pahalgam was finished”. During the hearing, the lawyer for the company Dhananjay Vidyapati argued that the complaint was only filed for campaign and that the presumed public mischief under article 505 of the IPC does not become an alleged crime. He also said that it was a single incident, the concert went well and that the complaint had been filed by the third party. However, the state lawyer said that the intention must be detected during the investigation into Sonu Nigam’s comments. He said: “Whether the comments were deliberately made or not, he cannot be decided under article 482 (CRPC). He did not cooperate in the investigation. He could at least say that he was occupied. ”

Argument against privileges, the state lawyer said: “The person who does not respect the appropriate law procedure cannot benefit under article 482 … It is not a normal person, but that is why they should not have made such a declaration.” When the court asked why the company’s declaration cannot be registered virtual or at their residence, then the state would be like that. Given the concerns raised by the company’s lawyer in the media after his personal appearance, the court said: “If you want his direct appearance, you go to his home and record his declaration.” They can bear expenses. The court has filed the state’s argument that no punitive measure will be taken if the company cooperates in the investigation. He prohibited the submission of a final report until the date of the next hearing in the case.