O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

2.The petitioner is figuring as an accused in Crime No.374 of 2021 registered on the file of the first respondent for the offences under Section 505(2) of IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

3.The facebook post made by the petitioner on 21.06.2021 at around 09.00 am has given rise to the impugned prosecution. It is seen that an unauthorized construction was put up and the petitioner demanded its removal.

4.When the matter was taken up on the last occasion, I called upon the petitioner to produce material to show that the construction was really unauthorized. The petitioner has produced material to show that prior approval of the District Collector was not obtained from putting up the said place of worship. It is also seen that there were public protest.

It was only in that connection, the petitioner has made the post in question.

5.The petitioner states that in future, he will be extremely careful in making his facebook post and he would also take down the offending facebook post. The petitioner gives an undertaking that in future, he will not hurt the religious sentiment of any person. Since the petitioner's offending facebook post was more in response to the inaction on the part of the authorities and since there is sufficient material to show that the construction in question was not authorized and since the petitioner has given an undertaking to conduct himself properly in future, in my view, the continuance of the impugned prosecution is not warranted. In this view of the matter, the impugned FIR is quashed and the criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

03.02.2022 Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ias 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, Kaliyakkavilai Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

ias

03.02.2022 (1/2)