Balasubramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu

Crl.OP(MD)No.21570 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 01.12.2025CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRICrl.O.P.(MD).No.21570 of 2025andCrl.MP(MD)No.18544 of 20251.Rajamathan2.Selvakumar3.Arasupandi... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 3 Vs.1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram, Police Station, Avaniyapuram, Madurai City, (In Crime No. 601 of 2024)... 1st respondent / Complainant2.Pandikannan ... 2nd respondent / Defacto ComplainantPrayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.601/2024 on the file of the respondent police, and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.For Petitioner: Mr.Niranjan S.KumarFor R-1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl. side)1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.21570 of 2025 ORDER This Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.601 of 2024 registered by the respondent police for alleged offences under Sections 192,196(1)(a),197(1)(a),197(1)(c),352,353(1)(c) and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 153, 153-A, 153-B ,504,505(1)(c) and 50592) and allied provisions of the Indian Penal Code as against the petitioners.Factual background:2.The petitioners are long-standing office bearers and members of the Hindu Munnani Organisation, which is a recognised social, cultural and public interest organisation actively involved in temple-related activities, cultural programmes and social service for several decades.3.On 27.08.2024, the said organisation proposed to conduct a peaceful protest meeting at Villupuram Housing Board, Nagamma Temple area in order to highlight and condemn the attacks on 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.21570 of 2025Hindus reported in Bangladesh. The objective was to create awareness and express concern over human rights violations abroad.4.The police authorities initially declined permission. Aggrieved by such refusal, the organisers approached this Court in W.P.(MD) No.19672 of 2024. This Court, by order dated 16.08.2024, permitted the protest and directed the respondent police to grant appropriate bandobust and ensure peaceful conduct of the event.5.In compliance with the orders of this Court, the protest was held on 27.08.2024 under the leadership of the petitioners. Adequate police protection was provided. The petitioners addressed the gathering only on issues related to the attack on Hindus in Bangladesh and called for harmony and vigilance.6.According to the petitioners, speeches delivered were general in nature, raising concerns about the safety of Hindus abroad and appealing for peace. No inflammatory statements, no communal targeting, and no calls for violence or unrest were made.3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.21570 of 2025Prosecution version:7.As per the FIR, the petitioners, along with other members of the Hindu Munnani Organisation, allegedly delivered statements capable of creating hatred between communities, thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 192, 196(1)(a), 197(1)(c), 352, 353(1)(c) and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.8.It is alleged that the petitioners made “hateful remarks”, “inciting statements” and “objectionable comments” which, according to the FIR, could have disturbed public tranquillity. 9.No specific statement, no specific instance, and no particular utterance is recorded in the complaint. The FIR only alleges the generic expression that the petitioners “spoke in a manner inciting riots”.Submissions:10.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR is vague, baseless, and does not disclose any offence. No specific speech or utterance is extracted in the FIR. The protest was held 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.21570 of 2025after obtaining express permission from this Court. The event was monitored by the police and no adverse report was prepared then. The FIR was registered two days after the protest, without any complaint from the public. The FIR is a result of political pressure and mala fide motives. All statements are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.11.Reliance is placed on:Balasubramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu1, Mohammad Bajid v. State of U.P.2, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India4.12.It is argued that no ingredients of Sections 153, 153-A or 153-B IPC equivalents under BNS are made out, and continuation of investigation would be a sheer abuse of process.1 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14470 of 20252 2023 LiveLaw 6243 1992 Supp (1) SCC 3354 (2015) 5 SCC 15/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.21570 of 202513.The learned Government Advocate contends that the investigation is in its preliminary stage. The possibility of inflammatory content cannot be ruled out. The police registered the case considering public order concerns.14.However, upon direction of this Court, the respondent police were unable to produce any transcript, audio clip, video material or eyewitness statement specifying a single offending remark.15. Points for consideration:(i) The following issues arise whether the FIR contains material disclosing any ingredients of the alleged offences?(ii) Whether the allegations are vague, general and not legally sustainable?(iii) Whether the delay in registration of the FIR is fatal?(iv)Whether continuation of proceedings constitutes abuse of process?6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.21570 of 2025 Analysis:16.The FIR nowhere specifies what exact sentence or expression was made by the petitioners. Criminal proceedings cannot rest on vague allegations about “speaking in a manner that incited riots”.17.For offences equivalent to Sections 153, 153-A or 153-B IPC, there must be specific words, targeting a community, intention to promote hatred, likelihood of breach of peace but none exist here.18. Criticism of international events or expression of concern regarding attacks on a community abroad falls squarely within protected political speech and are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution..19.The protest was held pursuant to an order of this Court. The police supervised the event. No untoward incident was reported at the time.7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.21570 of 202520.The FIR was filed one week later, without any public complaint or contemporaneous report, strongly suggesting political motivation.21.Applying State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1 principles, the FIR discloses no offence (Category 1), contains absurd accusations (Category 5), is mala fide and motivated (Category 7).22.This Court has already held in Balasubramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu2 case that general speeches referring to attacks on Hindus do not constitute offences of promoting enmity or public mischief unless specific hatred inciting content is demonstrated.23. In view of the discussions supra, the FIR in Crime No.601 of 2024, Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai City, does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. The allegations are vague, unsupported by particulars and constitutionally 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 3352 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14470 of 20258/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.21570 of 2025unsustainable. Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process.24.In fine, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.601 of 2024 on the file of the Avaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai City, is hereby quashed as against the petitioners. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.01.12.2025NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes/ NoSml To1.The Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram, Police Station, Avaniyapuram, Madurai City.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.21570 of 2025L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J. SmlCRL OP(MD)No.21570 of 202501.12.2025 10/10