Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.7206 of 2025O RDER This Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.320 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent.2. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime No. 320 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 192, 352, 353(1)(b) & 353(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The allegations against the petitioner are that the second respondent is a Srimadh Paramahamsa Appan Ulakariyan Ramanuja Embar Jiyar Swamy, Sri Embar Jiyar Mutt, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District. During the first week of December, the accused called him through phone and whatever speech was spoken by the second respondent, it was recorded without permission and without consent. Thereafter, it was fabricated by adding false information and posted in his YouTube channel called "Our Temples-Rangarajan Narasimman" on 06.12.2024. The video runs about 17.47 minutes in the name of "Sanathanathai Pathukatha Udhayanidhi" along with the telephone Page 2 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7206 of 2025talk by the second respondent. In the said video, questions were raised about the second respondent's position of Matadhipathi, and false allegations were made. In particular, the second respondent failed to respect the values and traditions. Further, he acted against Vaishnava legacy by fabricating the speech, thereby questioning his position as Matadhipathi of Sri Embar Jiyar Mutt. The petitioner also morphed and added something and posted the video in his YouTube Channel and also posted it on Redpick Social media. The further allegations are as follows://////nkw;Twpa ciuahlypy;. ehd; jpUkjp Ju;fh !;lhypd;“ tPl;ow;F gpuhkzu; njhrj;ij ePf;Ftjw;fhd rl';if bra;tjw;fhf brd;nwdh vd;Wk;. mtu;fs; tPl;oy; czt[ cz;nldh vd;Wk; u';fuh$d; eurpk;kd; Fwpg;ghf nfs;tp vGg;gpdhu;/ ,jd;K:yk; kw;w rhjpapdupd; tPl;oy; czt[ cz;zf;TlhJ vd;w itztu;fspd; ghuk;gupa ek;gpf;iffSf;F vjpuhdJ vd;W Fwpg;gpl;lhu;/ ehd;. g[j;jf btspaPl;L tpHhtpw;F miHf;fg;gl;ljhft[k;. ,e;J rka mwepiyaj;Jiw mikr;ru; jpU/nrfu;ghg[it re;jpj;jjhft[k; bjuptpj;njd;/ nkYk; ciuahlypd; nghJ. ehd; jpU/cjaepjp !;lhypDf;F gpuhkzu; njhrj;ij ePf;f VnjDk; rl';F-gpuhar;rpj;jk; bra;njsh vd u';fuh$d; eurpk;kd; Fwpg;ghf nfl;lhu;/ ,jw;F ehd;. Jiz Kjy;tu; tPl;ow;F bry;ytpy;iy vd;Wk;. ve;jtpj rl';nfh g{i$nah bra;atpy;iy vd;Wk; gjpyspj;njd;/ vd;Dila mDkjpapd;wp Page 3 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7206 of 2025vd; ciuahliy bjhiyngrpapy; gjpt[ bra;J. cz;ikfis jpupj;J Twp. ehDk; kw;w $Pau;fSk; jpU/ cjaepjp !;lhypdpd; tPl;ow;F mtu;fspd; ntz;Lnfhspd; ngup;y rpy rl';Ffs; bra;tjw;fhf brd;wjhf bghUs;gLk; tifapy; bgha;ahd jftiy kj czu;it g[z;gLj;Jk; tifapYk; kj ey;ypzf;fj;ij rPu;Fiyj;J bghJkf;fs; kw;Wk; fl;rpapdupilna fytuj;ij Jhz;o rl;l xG';F gpur;rid Vw;gLk; tifapy; u';fuh$d; eurpk;kd; me;j tPonahit btspapl;Ls;shu;/ me;j tPonahtpy; vd;Dila glj;ija[k; vd;Dila bgaiua[k; vd;Dila mDkjp ,d;wp gad;gLj;jp bgha;ahd tje;jpia gug;g[fpd;wdu;/ ,e;j bgha;ahd jfty; kj uPjpahd gjw;wj;ij cUthf;fpa[s;sJ/ ,d;W ehd; v';fs; kl mYtyhf brd;id te;jpUe;j nghJ vd; gf;ju;fs; vd;dplk; !;uPu;'fk; u';fuh$d; eurpk;kd; gjptpl;l tPonahit fhl;o nfs;tpfs; vGg;gpajd; gpd;dhy; me;j tPonahit ghu;j;J mjpu;r;rpa[k; mtkhdKk; mile;njd;/ u';fuh$d; eurpk;kd; vd;Dld; bjhiyngrpapy; bjhlu;g[ bfhz;L ngrpaJ rK:f tiyjsj;jpy; bgha;ahf gug;gg;gl;Ls;sJ fz;lwpe;njd;/ nkYk; vdf;F mog;gilthj kw;Wk; jPtpu FGf;fsplkpUe;J mr;RWj;jy;fs; tUtjhy; ehd; ghJfhg;ghf ,y;yhky; kpft[k; gae;j epiyapy; cs;nsd;/ ,e;j bray;fs; vdJ jdpa[upikia kPWtnjhL. VdJ kj ek;gpf;iffisa[k;. klj;jpd; kjpg;iga[k; ghjpf;Fk; tifapy; mike;Js;sd/ nkYk; nkw;Twpa bgha;ahd jftiy Red Pix Channel nrdy; elj;jp tUk; bgypf;!; b$uhy;l; kw;Wk; fs";rpak; Mfpnahu; mnj nehf;fj;njhL ,e;j bgha;ahd bra;jpia gug;gp rl;l xG';F gpur;ridia Vw;gLj;jp Page 4 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7206 of 2025tUfpwhu;fs;/ Mfnt. jtwhd jftiy gug;gp kj ey;ypzf;fj;ij rPu;Fiyj;J bghJ kf;fspilna rl;lk; xG';F gpur;rpid Vw;gLk; tifapy; ele;J bfhz;l nkw;Twpa u';fuh$d; eurpk;kd; kw;Wk; Red Pix Channel elj;jp tUk; bgypf;!; b$uhy;l; kw;Wk; fs";rpak; Mfpnahu; kPJ cupa eltof;if vLj;J. rl;lg;go jz;lid tH';f ntz;Lfpnwd;/”3. The petitioner appeared in person before this Court and submitted that none of the allegations made and levelled in the First Information Report attracted any offences under Sections 192, 352, 353(1)(b) & 353(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The First Information Report was registered on 15.12.2024 at about 12.00 p.m. in Crime No. 320 of 2024 by the first respondent. In pursuance of the registration of the First Information Report, he was arrested on 15.12.2024 at about 2.30 p.m. at his residence in Srirangam, that too without following any procedure laid down under B.N.N.S. 2023 and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in [(2014) SCC 273]. The registration of the First Information Report and the arrest of the petitioner appear to be driven by political vendettas. Subsequent to the registration of the First Information Page 5 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7206 of 2025Report impugned in this petition, a series of FIRs were registered on the file of different Police Stations against the petitioner and formal arrests were shown in pursuance of the registration of those First Information Reports.4. He further submitted that even assuming that the allegations are true, the offence under Section 192 of BNS is not at all made out, since there is no evidence of any statements or actions by the petitioner that would provoke anyone to intend to cause a riot. None of the allegations disclose any instance of any statement made by the petitioner which would demean or undermine the capabilities or position of the complainant. It does not disclose any facts. Therefore, the offence under Section 352 of BNS is also not attracted. There is no allegation to cite any specific content from the video to demonstrate that the petitioner either incited fear or alarm among the public or persuaded anyone to commit a crime against the State or any individual. Therefore, the offence under Section 353(1)(b) of BNS is not at all attracted.Page 6 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7206 of 20255. Likewise, the allegations do not provide any information indicating any statements by the petitioner that would cause fear, alarm, or provoke anyone to commit an offence against any person and as such, the offence under Section 353(2) of BNS is also not attracted as against the petitioner. There is no specific content from the video to demonstrate that the petitioner either disseminated false information or incited conflict between any communities. Insofar as the offence under Section 65 of the IT Act is concerned, the entire allegations revolve solely around a video and have no connection whatsoever to any computer source code. Therefore, no offence is made out as against the petitioner and he sought the quashment of the First Information Report.6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report. 7. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.Page 7 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7206 of 20258. As stated supra, on a perusal of the entire First Information Report, there are specific allegations as against the petitioner that the second respondent never spoke anything as mentioned in the videograph of the petitioner. He never visited the house of Mrs. Durga Stalin or the Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu to perform any pooja and rituals. Since the second respondent is the Matadhipathi of Sri Embar Jiyar Mutt, the speech and the videograph of the petitioner caused a serious issue between the administrators of the Mutt. He also received serious threats from many persons. Therefore, the allegations in the complaint made out a prima facie case to register the First Information Report and also to constitute the offences registered by the first respondent.9. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code. Page 8 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7206 of 202510. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., (Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance of the offence whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for quashment. Therefore, it is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, Page 9 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7206 of 2025there would be no justification to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is no open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.11. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows :-“23. .................... vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule;..............xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the Page 10 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7206 of 2025investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;.............xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......”Page 11 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7206 of 202512. In view of the above discussions, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.320 of 2024 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.13. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.13.03.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderkvTo1. The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Chennai City, Tamil Nadu.2. The Pubic Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.Page 12 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.7206 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,kvCrl.O.P.No.7206 of 202513.03.2025Page 13 of 13