The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mere use of a name resembling that of a community leader does not automatically constitute an insult to a religious community, and deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings is necessary to attract the offence under Section 295A of IPC.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records in Crime No.275 of 2022 pending on the file of the first respondent police and to quash the same.)

1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.275 of 2022, filed against the petitioners, by the first respondent police, pursuant to the directions of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, for the offence punishable under Section 295A of IPC.

2. The crux of the allegation in the FIR is that the defacto complainant / second respondent and his friend has watched a movie by name "Jai Bhim" acted and produced by Mr.Suriya (A2) and directed by Mr.T.J.Gnanavel (A1) and released in OTT platform. It is projected that as if it is a real story and that they came to know that it in order to insult and humiliate the defacto complainant's community and incite communal violence, the story has been projected as if a Irular community man was killed by a Sub Inspector of Police named Guru. It is the case of the defacto complainant that name of Guru has been given to the police officer and in fact the name Guru refers to the former President of Vanniyar Sangam. Further, it can be seen that the daily calendar of the Vanniyar Sangam was also used and thereby FIR has been lodged for an offence punishable under Section 295A of IPC.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that the film showcases the torture inflicted upon the Irular community people under police custody. The story is based on a case conducted before the Madras High Court. The names are not connected with any particular section or community. The movie was also given appropriate certificate by the Censor Board. He further contended that absolutely there is no allegation which attracts the offence under Section 295A of IPC. Merely on the inference and presumptions of the defacto complainant that his caste leader's name has been used, the offence under Section 295A of IPC cannot be invoked.

4. It is the further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that before forwarding the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate ought to have seen that sanction has been properly obtained for screening the motive from a Statutory Body, whereas, the learned Magistrate has mechanically forwarded the complaint, which resulted in lodging of the complaint against the Director and the Producer. Therefore, he seeks to quash the entire FIR as it is an abuse of process of law.

5. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, apart from filing the counter, would submit that in the movie a caste leader of a particular caste has been projected in a negative manner and humiliated. The entire movie has instigated violence between two sections of the society and hence the offence under Section 295A of IPC has been clearly attracted and at this stage, the FIR cannot be quashed.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent police would submit that police registered the FIR since there was a direction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and submitted that he is leaving the matter to the Court.

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

8. Normally if there is a prima facie allegation and it discloses a cognizable offence, the Courts will not interfere with the F.I.R. during investigation stage. But at the same time, if the F.I.R is lodged on any assumptions or presumptions without any such incident has occurred or as a result of some motive, the Court can very well interfere with such F.I.R while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

9. Perusal of the FIR, it can be seen that the movie called "Jai Bhim" was released in OTT platform and the second petitioner herein Mr.Suriya has acted and produced the film and the first petitioner h