FIR quash Athenam Crl. O.P. No. of 2025 In FIR in Crime No. 22 of 2025 (On the file of CCD-1 (Cyber Crime), East Zone, Chennai) Shri. Harihara Gnasambandha Desiga Paramachariyar Swamigal, Madurai Adhenam, Therkavani Moolaveedhi,

MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION

(Under Section of the Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha,2023)

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(Criminal Original Jurisdiction)

Crl. O.P. No. of 2025

In
FIR in Crime No. 22 of 2025

(On the file of CCD-1 (Cyber Crime), East Zone, Chennai)

Shri. Harihara Gnasambandha
Desiga Paramachariyar Swamigal,
Madurai Adhenam,
Therkavani Moolaveedhi,
Madurai – 625001
…Petitioner/Accused

Versus

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch -1(Cyber Branch)
East Zone
Chennai – 600007Complainant

2. Rajalingam Ramasamy
No. 278, Konnur High Road
Ayyanavaram,
Chennai – 600023

…Respondents

QUASH PETITION UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023

THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED STATES AS FOLLOWS: –

1. Address for service of all notices and processes for the petitioner is that of his counsels M/s Ramaswamy Meyyapan, A.K. Samruthi and KP Pramod Kumar, Advocates having offices at AKR & Associates, Ocean Rajeshwari, New No. 17, Old No. 9, North Sriraam Street, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600018, Ph: +91 99 401 88 325; e-mail:meram6@gmail.com.

2. The address for service of all notices and processes on the Respondent is that as stated above.

3. The Petitioner prefers this criminal original petition praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the FIR in Cr. No. 22 of 2025 dated 24.06.2025 under section 528 of BNSS on the ground that the petitioner is innocent and none of the essential ingredients of Section 192, 196(1)(a), 353(1)(b) and 353(2) of the BNS are satisfied. The crux of the allegations that has been raised against the petitioner is that allegedly, statements were made by the petitioners with the intention of creating disharmony amongst the public on religious grounds. The FIR registered against the Petitioner is absolutely false and incorrect.

4. The background facts are as under:
A. The petitioner is Shri. Harihara Gnasambandha Desiga Paramachariyar Swamigal, and the 293rd Madathipathy of Madurai Aadheenam. The petitioner holds a high position of respect and honor in the Hindu religion . The Petitioner has dedicated his life for the service and wellbeing of people and promoting harmony and discipline amongst different groups. The Petitioner is of good character without any prior conviction or such
allegations.

B. The Petitioner was enroute to attend the 6th International Saiva Siddhanta conference organised by Dharmapuram Adheenam at SRM University, Kattankulathur in the first week of May 2025. On 02.05.2025, A Toyota Fortuner car in which the Petitioner was travelling was hit by another car near Ulundurpet, Kallakurichi. On preliminary inspection by the driver of Petitioner’s car, the other car which caused the accident had speeded past the barriers kept in the road to cause the accident, and further the car did not bear any number plates. This caused suspicions in the mind of the people in Petitioner’s car and immediately for the safety of Petitioner reached Kanchipuram for the Petitioner to take rest. The Petitioner was under an impression of imminent and grave threat to his life owing to his stature and position within the Hindu community. After which the petitioner proceeded to Chennai to attend the conference. Further, The Petitioners and the people in his car including the driver had seen two individuals with long beards and a cap traditionally worn by people following the religion of Islam inside the car that caused the accident. The incident had left the petitioner in shock in fear of death or grave injury. The fact that the car had no number plate, speeding and that the car had entered the wrong lane passing the barricade added to his fear.

C. Later, at the conference on 03.05.2025, when enquired about the accident by the media in a press conference, statements were made by the Petitioner that there was an imminent threat to his life allegedly caused by two individuals following the faith of Islam. The Petitioner merely narrated what had happened during the incident only upon questioning by the media personnel. Further, the Petitioner did not publish any statements in the media voluntarily, only upon repeated questioning by the media, certain statements were made about his accident; it does not constitute an offence under the Information Technology Act, 2000. It is pertinent to note, the Petitioner never intended to make the information about his accident public, his intention from his express words indicate he always intended to leave it to God. Circulation and reporting of the statement was done by respective media agencies and it was never circulated, shared or publicized by the Petitioner.

D. The Petitioner nowhere in the statement made any remarks regarding any religion but merely narrated a near death experience when constantly questioned by the media. If the cars had collided completely there was a possibility that the pontiff would have been seriously injured. The basic ingredients of intention to instigate these alleged crimes are completely absent.

GROUNDS

5. It is submitted that at the outset this FIR is used as a tool to arbitrarily arrest, harass, insult and torment the Petitioner. The Complainant with a mala fide intent to harass and vex the Petitioner in a false proceeding without any merits has foisted this case. The baseless nature of the case indicates that there is a larger malicious agenda at play to engulf the Petitioner in false and un-meritorious cases. The Petitioner fears that the Respondent will use the Police Authorities to try and take coercive steps against him.

6. It is submitted that Section 192 of BNS reads as follows:
Whoever malignantly, or wantonly by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed, shall, if the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the offence of rioting be not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
3. It is submitted that Petitioner did not do anything illegal. The petitioner merely made statements narrating an accident which transpired to him. He did not intend nor have knowledge that the statements will likely cause provocation. Further the likelihood of provocation must be reasonably expected. It is pertinent to mention that there is no recorded riot or any criminal activity due to the innocent speech given by the Petitioner.
4. It is submitted that Section 196(1)(a) of BNS reads as follows:
Whoever—
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic communication or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities;
5. The ingredients of Section 196(1)(a) are not satisfied as stated earlier, these statements were not made on religious lines. No comments were made on any specific religions, rather on two individuals who were responsible for the alleged accident which left the Petitioner in shock.
6. Section 353 (2) reads as:
Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing false information, rumour or alarming news, including through electronic means, with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
7. Ingredients of statements conducing to public mischief under section 353(1)(c) and 353(2) are not satisfied as none of the statements instigated any violence nor caused any disharmony among the public. The Petitioner went a step ahead to make a statement that no police complaints were filed by the Petitioners with the Police to not instigate and blow up this issue any further and left the burden to god.
8. A press meeting at another public event which was sensationalised through the media should not be the basis to file a vexatious case intending to insult and affect the religious sentiment of followers of the Madurai Adheenam and the Petitioner himself.

9. Further, the incident of alleged crime took place on 03.05.2025 and the FIR was only made on 24.06.2025. In the course of time, there has been no reported instigation, disharmony or any other crime committed on the pretext of the speech given by the Petitioner on the basis of religion. The FIR has been filed with no credible proof just to cause insult to the chief priest of the Madurai Adheenam.
Further, no such statements were made by Petitioner to cause disharmony.

10. Further, on an Independent case, the driver of the Petitioner’s car has cooperated with the authorities and given statements in furtherance of Investigation. The intent to call the pontiff to the police station in an attempt to insult the Petitioner is clear from the repeated communications between the authorities and the Petitioner. The nature of the language used and threats seems apparent of an arrest without any evidence to make a prima facie case against the Petitioner. This is merely an attempt to harass and embarrass the Individual and his religious seat.
11. The Petitioner has dedicated his life to promoting Hindu dharma and has been actively involved in community service to the public at large. The Petitioner has an impeccable record of conduct throughout his life. He is well-respected within the community and among his followers for his dedication, integrity and commitment for his service towards the community.
12. A complaint has been filed against the Petitioner with the Chennai East zone- CCD-I Cyber Crime Police Station, Chennai, forming part of the First Information
Report dated 24.06.2025, in FIR No. 22 of 2025, alleging offences under Section 192,
196(1)(a), 353(1)(b) and 353(2) of the BNS. The Petitioner is innocent of the charges The case was filed merely as an act of publicity and ought not to be entertained.

13. The complainant has neither made statements in the FIR that he was instigated nor was there any proof to show that a member of the public was affected by the said alleged instigation.
14. Given the lack of any basis and any credible evidence supporting the claims in the FIR, The FIR ought to be quashed in the interest of Justice. The FIR and subsequent actions were designed to harass the petitioner without any valid basis. The lack of evidence should warrant the dismissal of charges and cessation of any further investigation. Further, In the year of 1880, Madras Presidency Provision, Order No: 2240 dated 15.09.1880, Exemption for religious Heads (Aadheenams) : Where
its brief:
If an Aadheenam (a head of a religious institution) falls under the Category of individuals who, according to the customs and manners of the Country, Should not be compelled to appear in Public, they may be exempt from personal appearance in court.
15. The petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in possession of the original of the
FIR registered in Crime No. 220 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent police, However, he has a copy of the same downloaded from the official website of the first respondent.
16. The Petitioner submits that the allegations made in the First Information Report even when taken in their face value do not prima facie constitute an offense. And according to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge the Honorable court to meet ends of justice may be pleased to quash the FIR. Further the Petitioner humbly prays this Hon’ble Court to quash the FIR due to exceptional circumstances and since no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report in accordance to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra and ors., (2021) 19 SCC 401.

PRAYER

Under these circumstances, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for records relating to the FIR registered in Crime No. 22 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent police, quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

Dated at Chennai on this day of July 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner