₹370 Biryani Controversy | Before Guilt Is Proved, FIRs In 2 States Over Same Episode: Pranit More Moves Supreme Court To Club Cases
Curated by NEWS DESK
Editorial DeskCan one viral crowd-work interaction force a comedian to defend separate criminal cases in two States before any court has decided his guilt? Pranit More has now approached the Supreme Court seeking clubbing of the FIRs arising from the controversy.
NEW DELHI: Stand-up comedian Pranit More has moved the Supreme Court seeking clubbing of FIRs registered against him in Maharashtra and Haryana over the viral “Rs 370 biryani” controversy. His petition has made the Union of India, Maharashtra and Haryana parties to the case. The matter is reportedly likely to be listed before the Supreme Court on September 21, 2026.
The controversy started during one of More’s stand-up shows in Gurugram. During a crowd interaction, audience member Himanshu Jangra spoke about taking a woman on a date, spending Rs 370 on chicken biryani and expecting sexual intimacy in return when she asked him to drop her home.
More laughed along with the audience and described the exchange as “peak Gurugram content.” The clip later went viral and triggered strong criticism on social media, with several people alleging that the interaction trivialised issues of consent and sexual coercion. Importantly, the audience member made the original controversial statement, while More also came under criminal scrutiny over his reaction and the alleged publication and circulation of the content.
The legal consequences did not remain confined to one State. Maharashtra Cyber registered FIR No. 36/2026 against More, Jangra, Dr Sejal Pawar and others. Reports quoting Maharashtra Cyber state that the case invokes Sections 75(1)(iv), 75(3), 294 and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Police later registered a separate case at DLF Phase-II Police Station in Gurugram after action was initiated on a complaint from the National Commission for Women. Gurugram Police reportedly invoked Sections 75(2), 75(3), 294 and 353(3) BNS along with Section 67 of the IT Act against More and Jangra.
More was also summoned by the National Commission for Women. After the controversy intensified, he issued public apologies. According to the report, More said he had been "carried away" by the crowd’s reaction and described his failure to intervene during the interaction as a "lapse in judgment".
The present Supreme Court petition does not itself decide whether the allegations against More are true or whether the offences mentioned in the FIRs are ultimately made out. His immediate plea concerns the burden of facing criminal proceedings arising from substantially the same controversy in different States. He has sought clubbing of the FIRs, so that parallel criminal proceedings over the same episode are not pursued separately across jurisdictions. The allegations remain untested and More continues to have the right to contest the criminal cases in accordance with law.
The controversy has also become part of a wider legal debate. A separate PIL before the Supreme Court has referred to the Rs 370 biryani episode while seeking a regulatory framework for stand-up comedy, podcasts, live-streaming platforms and other digital content. However, More’s present writ petition concerns the multiple FIRs registered against him in Maharashtra and Haryana.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS
| Law / Section | What It Means | Application In This Case |
|---|---|---|
| Section 75(1)(iv), BNS | Section 75 deals with sexual harassment. Clause (iv) concerns making sexually coloured remarks. | Reported as part of the Maharashtra Cyber FIR against More and others. |
| Section 75(2), BNS | Provides punishment for specified forms of sexual harassment covered by Section 75(1). | Reported as one of the provisions invoked in the Gurugram FIR against More and Jangra. |
| Section 75(3), BNS | Provides punishment for making sexually coloured remarks covered by Section 75(1)(iv). | Reported in both the Maharashtra and Gurugram cases. |
| Section 294, BNS | Deals with sale, distribution, public exhibition or circulation of obscene material in the circumstances specified by the provision. | Invoked in connection with the alleged circulation/publication of objectionable content arising from the show. |
| Section 353(2), BNS | Deals with publishing or circulating specified false information, rumours or alarming news with the intent or likelihood of promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between groups. | Reported as part of the Maharashtra Cyber FIR. |
| Section 353(3), BNS | Provides enhanced punishment where the offence specified in Section 353(2) is committed at a place of worship or religious assembly. | Gurugram Police reported it as one of the provisions in the Gurugram FIR. Its factual applicability remains a matter for investigation and legal proceedings. |
| Section 354, BNS | Deals with causing or attempting to cause a person to act or abstain from acting by inducing a belief that otherwise the person would become an object of Divine displeasure. | The linked LawBeat report mentions Section 354 in one passage. However, other reports identifying the specific Maharashtra and Gurugram FIR provisions reviewed for this article do not list Section 354. |
| Section 67, Information Technology Act, 2000 | Punishes publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form. | Invoked in the reported cases concerning circulation of the viral video through online and social-media platforms. |
CASE DETAILS
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Pranit More v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. |
| Case Number | W.P. (Crl.) No. 367 of 2026 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Petitioner | Pranit More |
| Respondents | Union of India, State of Maharashtra, State of Haryana and others |
| Relief Sought | Clubbing of FIRs registered in Maharashtra and Haryana arising from the controversy |
| Maharashtra FIR | FIR No. 36/2026, Nodal Cyber Police Station, Maharashtra Cyber |
| Core Issue Before Supreme Court | Whether FIRs arising from the controversy in different States should be clubbed and dealt with together |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Two States, Same Controversy: Pranit More is facing separate FIRs in Maharashtra and Haryana arising from the same viral episode.
- Audience Member Made the Remark: The controversial Rs 370 biryani statement was made by an audience member, while More came under criminal scrutiny over his reaction and circulation of the content.
- Supreme Court Moved: More has approached the Supreme Court seeking clubbing of the FIRs to avoid parallel proceedings in different States.
- Multiple Criminal Proceedings Before Guilt: A man is already forced to defend criminal cases across jurisdictions, even though no court has yet held him guilty.
- FIR Is Not Conviction: The allegations remain untested before a court. Registration of multiple FIRs cannot be treated as proof of guilt.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are moderated before publication.