BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.9409 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.6434 of 2024 Kaavi Kalaiarasan ... Petitioner / Sole Accused Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep . by The Inspector of Police, Ammapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.55/2023)

2.Venkataramanujam ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to FIR in Crime No. 55/2023 dated 19.10.2023 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Ammapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District and quash the same as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sundarapandian For R-1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

Prayer:

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records pertaining to the First Information Report in Crime No.55 of 2023 dated 19.10.2023 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Ammapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District, registered for the alleged offences under Section 290 IPC read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and to quash the same as against the petitioner.

Preface:

2. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973, is intended to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. When criminal law is set in motion without the foundational ingredients of the alleged offences, and when continuation of proceedings would amount to harassment rather than prosecution, this Court is duty-bound to interdict such proceedings at the threshold. The present Criminal Original Petition is one such instance where the facts, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence.

Facts of the prosecution:

3. The prosecution case, as borne out from the First Information Report, is that the second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner had downloaded a video through Instagram, which was originally created by certain students using TikTok, purportedly depicting a murder of a TASMAC employee that had occurred earlier in the same locality.

4. It is further alleged that the petitioner uploaded the said video on Facebook and published it through a website, advising parents and teachers to caution students against indulging in such violent and objectionable activities.

5. On the basis of the said complaint, the first respondent police registered the impugned FIR in Crime No.55 of 2023 dated

19.10.2023 for the offences under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner, aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, has approached this Court seeking quashment of the same.

Case of the petitioner / grounds for quash:

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the registration of the FIR is a clear abuse of process of law and is actuated by mala fide motives.

7. It is contended that the petitioner had neither created nor circulated any obscene or offensive content. On the contrary, the petitioner had merely shared an already available video with a cautionary message intended to create awareness among parents, teachers, and students.

8. It is further submitted that even as per the FIR, the petitioner had advised students not to engage in violent or inappropriate activities during the course of their studies, which by no stretch of imagination can attract the penal provisions invoked.

9. The learned counsel would submit that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner so as to attract either Section

290 IPC or Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 10. It is also alleged that the impugned FIR has been registered solely because the petitioner had criticised the inaction of the police and the ruling dispensation, and therefore the present prosecution is a colourable exercise of pow