Madras High Court
Balaprajapathy Adikalar vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 December, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16334 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 5312 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.8768 of 2021
Balaprajapathy Adikalar ... Petitioner/
Sole Accused
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Mandaikadu Police Station,
Kanniyakumari District,
Kanniyakumari.
(Crime No.57 of 2021) ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2.Sivakumar ...2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.57 of 2021
dated 12.06.2021 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
for Mr.S.Rajasekar
For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor for R.1
Mr.K.Rajeshwaran for R.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16334 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner wants this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.57 of 2021
registered on the file of Mandaikadu Police Station, for the offence under
Section 295 (A) IPC. Notice was issued to the defacto complainant/Sivakumar.
He entered appearance through counsel.
2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.K.Rajeshwaran,
learned counsel appearing for the second respondent reported no instructions
and called upon this Court to issue fresh notice to the defacto complainant.
When once the defacto complainant has been put on notice and he also entered
appearance through the counsel, the question of issuing fresh notice does not
arise.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the
contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and called upon this Court
to quash the impugned FIR.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent
submitted that no case for quashing has been made out.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16334 of 2021
5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
materials on record.
6. The petitioner is a religious leader based in Swamythoppu in
Kanyakumari District. Arulmighu Bagavathi Amman Temple in Mandaikadu is
well known temple and recently, witnessed a fire accident. The question arose
as to how the restoration measures have to be taken. In this regard, the
petitioner herein opined that there is no need to go for what is known as Deva
Prasanam and that steps must be taken by the Tamil Nadu Government to bring
the temple under Tamil traditions. The opinion expressed by the petitioner was
published in news papers also. The defacto complainant found this to be highly
objectionable and caused registration of the impugned FIR. According to the
defacto complainant, the petitioner had stated that the temple is cemetery of a
mentally retarded girl who belongs to a particular community. Absolutely, no
material was placed by the defacto complainant in support of his allegation. In
any event, the petitioner who is also a Hindu Religious Head, is definitely
entitiled to express his opinion that the temple in question must be brought
under Tamil traditions.
7. Section 295 (A) IPC will be attracted only if there is a delibrate and
malicious intent to outrage the religious beliefs of a particular class. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16334 of 2021
petitioner is entitled to express his opinion and the same is duly protected by
Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner has rightly relied on the decisions reported in Kushboo vs
Kaniammal(2010) 5 SCC 600 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench
of this Court reported in S.Tamilselvan vs The Government of Tamil Nadu
(2016(4) CTC 561). The ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions squarely
applies to the case on hand.
7. Registration of the impugned FIR was unwarrented and it stands
quashed. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.12.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
mga
Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is
the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Mandaikadu Police Station,
Kanniyakumari District,
Kanniyakumari.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16334 of 2021
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
mga
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16334 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.8768 of 2021
20.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
