Vinoth Suriya Kumar FIR quash case mhc order notice
MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION FILED UNDER
SECTION 528 BNSS
IN THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Crl. O.P.No. /2026 Against Crime No: 0082/2026
(On the file of the Inspector of Police, Cyber Cell, CCD-I, Central Crime Branch,
Chennai)
Vinoth Suriya Kumar aged 34 years
S/o Mr.Ramadoss
No 93/1, Subramaniya Swamy Kovil Street, Saidapet, Chennai-600015.
… Petitioner
Versus
The StateRepresented by
The Inspector of Police,
Cyber Cell, CCD-I, Central Crime Branch, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai – 600 008.
… 1st Respondent/Complainant
S. Muthuraman aged about 42 years,
S/o Mr. Sekar,
Junior Personal Assistant to Hon’ble Minister for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
… 2nd Respondent/De-Facto Complainant
QUASH PETITION
The Petitioner craves leave of this Honourable Court to Present this Memorandum of Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking the relief to call for the records and quash the First Information Report in Crime No: 0082/2026 pending investigation on the file of the Inspector of Police, Cyber Cell, CCD-I, Central Crime Branch, Chennai for offences under Section 192, 353 (1) (b) and 353 (2) BNS, 2023 asa against the Petitioner and submits as follows:
I. Address for Communication:
The Address for Communication for all processes and notices on that of the Petitioner/Accused is on his Counsels A.SARAVANAN [MS 832/1998], C.ARUN KUMAR [MS 1253/2008] S.GOPINATH (MS 86/2018), R. GAYATHRI (MS.4316/2023), S. LOKESH KANNAN (MS.4753/2023), S. RAMASAMY (MS. 5907/2025) S.NITHYA KALYANI [MS 6338/2024] G.R.PRNAV [MS 9305/2025] having their office at No 45, SM Plaza, 2nd Floor, Room No 9, Armenian Street, Chennai-600001.
The Address for Communication for all processes and notices on that of the Respondent is on the address mentioned above.
II. PROSECUTION CASE:
1. The Petitioner is one of the accused persons named in the impugned First Information Report (FIR) bearing Crime No. 82 of 2026 registered on 14.07.2026 at Cyber Crime Wing (CCW), Central Crime Branch, Chennai City Police, under Sections 192, 353(1)(b) and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
2. The Impugned First Information Report was registered on the basis of a written complaint dated 13.07.2026 filed by Respondent No.2 (S. Muthuraman, Junior Personal Assistant to the Hon’ble Minister for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments – HR&CE, Government of Tamil Nadu) on behalf of and under instructions from the Hon’ble Minister Thiru S. Ramesh.
3. The Pith and Substance of the Impugned First Information Report is that on or about 12.07.2026, certain posts were published on the social media platform ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) by handles @poornimachandr3 (Poornima Chandrasekar) and @IndiraniSudala1 (Indirani Sudalaimuthu), which were subsequently amplified by @dmkitwing (DMK IT Wing) and Instagram accounts of Kalaignar Seithigal / Kalaignar TV and political_mapla_ (Vinoth Suriya).
4. These posts allegedly contained false, defamatory and malicious content linking the Hon’ble Minister to an alleged land transaction at Palani (land measuring about 1 acre 40 cents at Ward 3, Block 25, Survey Nos. 998 & 999, Patta land of Arulmigu Thandapani Swami Madam / Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple, Palani), referring to the Minister as a ‘land broker’ and alleging that the transaction was done ‘in the name of an assurance given by Minister Ramesh’ and that ‘the Court has granted permission for the Registration Department to proceed with the registration’. The posts carried the photograph of the Hon’ble Minister.
5. It is further alleged in the FIR that the posts caused public mischief, disturbed public tranquility and lowered the image/reputation of the Hon’ble Minister. The FIR invokes Sections 192 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot), 353(1)(b) and 353(2) (statements conducing to public mischief) of BNS, 2023. The case has been entrusted to Tmt. K. Sujatha, Inspector of Police, for investigation, and FIR copy sent to the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet.
6. The impugned posts were made in the context of a genuine and ongoing public controversy involving the illegal dealing/registration of temple land belonging to the Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple, Palani (a premier temple under the administrative control of the HR&CE Department headed by the Hon’ble Minister).
7. The land issue involves pending civil litigation between the Temple (represented by Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer as Thakkar) and one Murugadoss (alleged trustee) in Sub Court, Palani (suits dismissed, first appeals pending) and a Writ Appeal pending before the Madurai Bench of this Hon’ble Court.
8. Despite a written objection lodged by the Temple authorities on 02.07.2026, the Joint Sub-Registrar, Palani (Justin Manikandan) registered a sale deed on 06.07.2026 in favour of Vellaithurai and Sethupathi. The Temple itself has filed a separate police complaint and appeal before the Inspector General of Registration.
9. The posts in question were based on publicly available information, news reports and the factual developments in the temple land dispute. There was no malicious intent to defame the Hon’ble Minister personally or to incite communal disharmony or riot.
10. The reference to ‘assurance given by Minister Ramesh’ was in the context of the Minister’s official capacity as head of the department overseeing the Temple properties, and the posts highlighted alleged irregularities in the registration process – a matter of legitimate public interest and concern.
11. Arrest and Remand: On 15th July 2026, the Petitioner was arrested and at Wee hours of 16th July 2026, the Petitioner was remadned to judicial custody. Although the Remand was vehemently objected, the Jurisdictional Magistrate without application of Judicial Mind had remanded the accused.
In these circumstances, the petitioner is approaching this Honourable Court seeking the relief to call for the records and quash the First Information Report in Crime No: 0082/2026 pending investigation on the file of the Inspector of Police, Cyber Cell, CCD-I, Central Crime Branch, Chennai for offences under Section 192, 353 (1) (b) and 353 (2) BNS, 2023 as against the Petitioner for the following among other
GROUNDS
A. NO PRIMA FACIE CASE DISCLOSED:
a. The impugned FIR does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence under Sections 192, 353(1)(b) or 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The essential ingredients of the said sections are not attracted on the facts as alleged or even as they stand.
b. Section 192 BNS (Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot) requires a deliberate illegal act giving provocation with knowledge that it is likely to cause rioting. The social media posts in question were informational in nature, highlighting a temple land registration controversy. There is no allegation, let alone material, that the posts were intended to or did in fact provoke any riot or public disorder. No riot or breach of peace has occurred or been alleged as a consequence. Even taking the case of the prosecution to be true still none of the ingredients to constitute the offences are made out.
c. Section 353 BNS (Statements conducing to public mischief) – which replaces old IPC Section 505 – criminalizes making, publishing or circulating false statements/rumours/reports likely to cause public alarm, mischief, disturbance of public tranquility, or promote enmity/hatred between groups. The posts did not contain any false statement of fact that was likely to cause such consequences. The core information – that a sale deed was registered despite Temple’s objection in a pending litigation matter – is substantially true and verifiable from public records and the Temple’s own actions (separate police complaint filed by Temple authorities).
B. TRUTH / FAIR COMMENT / PUBLIC INTEREST DEFENCE :
a. Even assuming arguendo that the posts contained critical commentary on the Hon’ble Minister, truth is a complete defence to allegations of defamation and public mischief when the statement relates to a matter of public interest. The land in question is patta land belonging to a public temple (Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple, Palani) under the administrative control of the HR&CE Department. The Hon’ble Minister heads the said department. Any dealing or alleged irregularity in temple properties is inherently a matter of intense public interest, scrutiny and legitimate media/social media discussion.
b. The posts highlighted alleged irregularities in the registration process (sale deed registered on 06.07.2026 despite written objection on 02.07.2026 by Temple authorities, in the backdrop of pending litigation). This is fair reporting and fair comment on a public affair. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that truth and fair comment on matters of public interest are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)
7 SCC 221; R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N. (1994) 6 SCC 632.
C. NO SPECIFIC DEFAMATORY IMPUTATION AGAINST THE MINISTER PERSONALLY:
a. A careful perusal of the impugned posts (as described in the FIR) shows that the criticism was directed at the alleged role of the Minister’s ‘assurance’ in facilitating or being linked to the land registration. There is no direct personal allegation of corruption, bribery or criminal misconduct against the Hon’ble Minister in his individual capacity.
b. Reference to a Minister in his official capacity in the context of departmental functions and temple property (which the department administers) does not per se constitute defamation of the individual. The FIR complaint itself admits that the Hon’ble Minister ‘holds charge of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department’ and that the Temple
‘administratively falls’ under it.
D. THE COMPLAINT IS MALAFIDE, ABUSE OF PROCESS AND FILED WITH ULTERIOR MOTIVE:
a. The timing and circumstances of the complaint reveal that it is a malafide attempt to suppress legitimate public scrutiny and criticism of alleged irregularities in the administration of temple properties under the HR&CE Department. The land dispute was already the subject of pending civil litigation and the Temple authorities themselves had initiated criminal complaint against the Sub-Registrar and purchasers. The impugned posts were part of public discourse on this issue. Instead of addressing the substantive concerns about the illegal registration, the complaint seeks to criminalize the messengers who highlighted the issue.
b. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against the abuse of criminal process to settle civil disputes or to stifle legitimate criticism. Filing of FIRs by public officials or their offices against citizens for social media posts criticizing governmental functioning or public property issues, without the posts crossing into hate speech or clear incitement, amounts to abuse of process. Rrliance is placed on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (Category 7 – where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive) Reliance is placed upon the Judgments of Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India (2021) 2 SCC 427; Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1.
E. NO INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE, COMMUNAL HATRED OR PUBLIC DISORDER – There is not a whisper of allegation in the FIR that the impugned posts incited any actual violence, riot, communal disharmony or breach of public order.
The posts were circulated on social media platforms and WhatsApp groups – a common modern phenomenon for discussion of public issues. Mere circulation of critical posts on a temple land issue, without any call to violence or communal targeting, cannot attract the stringent provisions of Section 353 BNS. The FIR registration appears to be an overbroad and disproportionate response aimed at chilling free speech.
F. VAGUE AND OMNIBUS ALLEGATIONS WITHOUT SPECIFIC PARTICULARS:
The FIR and the underlying complaint are vague and lack specific particulars of the exact words, phrases or imputations that are alleged to be false and defamatory. No specific ‘defamatory statement’ has been extracted or particularized. The allegation that the posts portrayed the Minister as a ‘land broker’ is itself vague – it is not clear whether this phrase was actually used in the posts or is an interpretation. In the absence of specific pleadings and particulars, no prima facie case of defamation or public mischief can be said to be made out. Criminal law cannot be set in motion on vague and omnibus allegations.
G. PROTECTED SPEECH UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(a) – FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION:
The impugned posts constitute protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently expanded the contours of free speech protection, especially in matters concerning public officials, public figures and matters of public interest. Criticism of governmental functioning, alleged irregularities in public property administration, and even strong or satirical commentary, are protected unless they fall within the narrow reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) (sovereignty and integrity of India, security of State, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to offence). The posts do not fall within any of these exceptions. Criminalization of such speech would have a chilling effect on free speech and public discourse, which is antithetical to democratic values.
H. NO USEFUL PURPOSE IN CONTINUING THE PROCEEDINGS:
Even if this Hon’ble Court were to find that some technical offence is made out (which is not admitted), continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only result in harassment, expense and trauma to the Petitioner and other accused persons. The ends of justice would be better served by quashing the FIR.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the criminal proceeding is not likely to result in conviction or where it is an abuse of process, the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to quash. See: State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699; PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (2017) 11 SCC 1.
I. THE INVESTIGATION IS NOT REQUIRED; PURE QUESTION OF LAW:
The dispute essentially revolves around interpretation of the posts vis-à-vis the ingredients of the penal provisions and the availability of defences (truth, fair comment, public interest). No further investigation is required to determine these issues. All material facts are already on record in the FIR itself and the pending civil litigation documents. This Hon’ble Court can adjudicate the matter on the basis of the FIR and the documents without the need for a fullfledged criminal trial. Quashing at this nascent stage would prevent abuse of process and save judicial time and resources.
J. THE COMPLAINANT HAS SUPPRESSED MATERIAL FACTS:
The complaint/FIR conveniently suppresses the material background that the land registration in question was itself illegal and done despite the Temple’s written objection; that the Temple authorities have themselves initiated criminal action against the Sub-Registrar and purchasers; and that civil appeals and Writ Appeal are pending. The posts were highlighting these very facts. A complainant who approaches the criminal justice system with unclean hands and suppresses material facts is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of criminal prosecution being continued. This itself is a ground for quashing.
K. DISPROPORTIONATE AND CHILLING EFFECT ON FREE SPEECH AND JOURNALISM / SOCIAL MEDIA ACTIVISM:
The Registration of FIR by Cyber Crime Wing against citizens and media handles for social media posts on a temple land controversy sends a chilling message to all citizens, journalists, activists and social media users who wish to highlight issues of public concern, especially irregularities in religious institutions and government departments. This has a deleterious effect on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to information. In a democracy, public officials and departments must be open to scrutiny and criticism, not shielded by criminal prosecutions for legitimate public discourse.
L. PETITIONER HAS CLEAN ANTECEDENTS AND ACTED IN GOOD FAITH:
The Petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The posts were made in good faith, based on publicly available information and with the bona fide belief that they served public interest by highlighting alleged irregularities in temple land administration. There was no personal malice or vendetta against the Hon’ble Minister.
Prayer:
In these circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to call for the records and quash the First Information Report in Crime No: 0082/2026 pending investigation on the file of the Inspector of Police, Cyber Cell, CCD-I, Central Crime Branch, Chennai for offences under Section 192, 353 (1) (b) and 353 (2) BNS, 2023 and thus render Justice.
DATED AT CHENNAI ON THIS THE DAY OF JULY 2026
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED
