BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11.11.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.15394 & 15396 of 2025 N.Murali ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, D-1, Thallakualm (L & O) Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.18 of 2012)

2.L.Perumal Junior Reporter, Police Abbreviation Office, Madurai City. ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records relating to the impugned final report in S.C.No.182 of 2024 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan For R1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned final report in S.C.No.182 of 2024 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 124A, 295A, 294(b), 504, 505(2), 505(3) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The gist of the allegation in the final report is that the petitioner, on 21.06.2011 at about 09:50 p.m., participated in a public meeting and made defamatory statements against the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, besides certain Ministers of Tamil Nadu, and thereby promoted hatred against the Ministers and disharmony between two groups, and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations, even if accepted to be true, would at best suggest that certain defamatory statements were made against the former Chief Minister and the Ministers, which are not in good taste; and that none of the offences alleged are made out. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya and others reported in (2021) 15 SCC 35, and the judgments of this Court in Thirumaran v. The State of Police, S.S.Colony Police Station, Madurai City and another, dated 13.12.2024 in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1705 of 2022, and in Tamilisai Soundararajan v. Dhadi K. Karthikeyan, reported in

2021 (3) MWN (Crl.) 159.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent would submit that the allegations, which are also defamatory, would certainly provoke enmity between two groups of people; and that the question as to whether the allegations would attract the offences alleged cannot be adjudicated in this quash petition, and therefore sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. The allegations against the petitioner for better understanding are extracted below:

“1) n[ayypjh rrpfyhit mizff; gpbfF; k; 2) vdd; elej; pUff; pwJ? n[ayypjh tej; hy; khw;wk; tUkhk; kapuj; hd; tUk;> vgg; blh khww; k; tUk;? Ngzl; ; rli; l NghlL; elej; td; Nfhl; NghlL; elej; hy; khww; k;> Nfhtdk; $l fll; hky; mkk; zf; Fzb; aha; Nghdhy; Gjj; pRthjPdk;> igjj; paff; hujj; dk; 3) nryY; }u; uh[P 10 kzpfF; Nghd; gzz; p ehd; gLff; NghflL; kh Ntzl; hkh mkk; htplk; NflL; nrhy; vdf; pwhd;. 4) ejj; k; tp]t; ehjd; rk;rhuji; j xOqf; hf itjj; pUff; pwhah kpd;rhuji; j xOqf; hf itjJ; f; nfhs; 5) eP xU R+jj; pud; ngww; gpsi; s 6) ghug; g; d ngzk; dpahd n[ayypjh Mlr; papy; clf; hue; J; nfhzL; jkpod;

gbff; $lhJ vdW; KbT nraj; pUff; pwhuf; s; 7) ebfu; flr; p vdW; epidff; hjPuf; s; njhgG; spy; gkg; uk; tpLfpw flr; p myy; jpuhtpl KdN; dwf; fofk; vdW; k; filrpahf Nfhkstss; p n[ayypjhTfF; nrhyf; pNwd;. vdw; thuj; i; jfshy; murpd; kPJ ntWgG; zui; t Vwg; LjJ; k; tpjkhfTk; xU tFgg; pdupd; czui; t jpLff; pLk; tifapYk; nghJ ,ljj; py; Mghrkhf Ngrp Mjj; pu%l;bAk; gPjpia tpistpjJ; k; Fww; k; nraa; J}zL; k; tpjkhfTk; xU ngzz; pd; khdj;jpw;F gqf; k; tpistpfF; k; mstpwF; k; nghJf; $ll; Nkilapy;

Ngrpa Fww; k; GupeJ; ss; hu;.”

6. The aforesaid allegations would at best suggest that certain irresponsible and defamatory statements were made by the petitioner, which are certainly not in good taste. However,