O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the petitioners to call for the records and quash the complaint in C.C.No.2863 of 2016 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate No.XIV, Egmore, Chennai for the offences under sections 295A and 298 IPC.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are correspondent, Principal, Vice Principal, CEO and Headmaster respectively of SBIOA School, Chennai. The defacto complainant was employed as a teaching assistant in the said school. Among the five petitioners, the 4th petitioner/A4 died.

3. He further contended that the respondent/complainant gave a complaint against the petitioners before V5 Thirumangalam Police Station alleging that on 13.3.20212, while the defacto compainant offered secular prayers (Sarvamadha Prarthanai) for class 12 students, by chanting ''Om Vigneshwaraya Namaha', the 3rd petitioner tried to remove the mike from her, in spite of the same, she continued with Christian and Islamic prayers. Subsequently, the 3rd petitioner switched off the mike and made another staff to continue the prayers. The 4th and 5th petitioners insulted her infront of other staffs by closing the four gates of the school on 13.03.2012, pursuant to which, a case was registered in Cr.No.937 of 2014 for the offences under sections 295A and 298 IPC. During investigation statements of various witnesses were recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., however, after completing the investigation, the police closed the complaint 'action has been dropped' and filed closure report before the X Metropolitan Magistrate. Notice in this regard has also been served on the defacto complainant. Aggrieved over such closure report, the respondent filed protest petition before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.133 of 2016 seeking to take cognizance against the accused for committing the offences under sections 295A and Sec.298 IPC. Considering the protest petition, the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai, by his order dated 07.04.2016, took cognizance of the private complaint for the offence under sections 295A and

298 IPC and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.2863 of 2016.

4. The learned counsel further contended that as per section 196 Cr.P.C., for taking cognizance against a person for the offence under section 295 A of IPC., previous sanction from the State or the Central Government is warranted. In this case, no sanction is granted by the Government for taking cognizance of the offence under section 295 A IPC. On this ground, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is vitiated. He further contended that the the offence under section 298 IPC is also not made out. The allegation in the complaint in paragraph 3 reflects no ingredient attracting the offence under section 298 IPC. The Only allegation against the petitioners is switching of mike while the respondent conducting secular prayers and stopped her from continuing prayers. There is no allegation of deliberate action to wound the religious feelings of any persons. In the circumstances, the complaint given by the respondent is unsustainable, hence, continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is misusing the process of court. Thus, he seeks to quash the complaint.

5. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments;

1. Manoj Rai Vs. State of Madhyapradesh, reported in MANU/SC/0488/1998;

2. I.Periyasamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in MANU/TN/3492/2022;

3. Kamal @ Kamalahasan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Order of this Court dated 21.05.2021;

4. Arvind Life Style Brands Vs. Madhavan @ Madhan , order of this High Court, dated 21.11.2019

5. Shalibadra Shah Vs. Swami Krishna Bharati reported in MANU/GJ/0159/1980

6. Malleshappa Vs. Sri Kumar reported in MANU/KA/1128/2015;

7. Aveek Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal reported in MANU/WB/0211/2015;

8. Poonam Pandey Vs. S.Umesh reported in MANU/KA/0702/2015;

9. Kamala Kan