BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 26.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 21.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.23906 of 2025 in Crl.MP(MD) Nos.20801 and 20803 of 2025 G.Suresh ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.

1. The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by. the Inspector of Police, Marthandam Police Station, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District.

Crime No.236/2021.

.... Respondent / Complainant

2. Seyed Ali ... Respondent/ Defacto Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Final Report / Charge Sheet in CC No.465/2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District and to quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan For R-1 : Mr.B.Thanga Aravind Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

ORDER

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.465 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai.

2. The petitioner stands arrayed as an accused for the alleged offence under Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now corresponding to Section 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), on the allegation that a Facebook post made by him created communal disharmony.

3. The case presents a significant question touching upon the delicate balance between criminal law and the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)

of the Constitution of India.

Case of the prosecution:

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner had posted certain messages on his Facebook account concerning a political leader, namely, M.H. Jawaharullah, MLA, and allegedly also made posts concerning the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. According to the prosecution, such posts had the tendency to create communal disharmony among the people of Kanyakumari District, who were otherwise living harmoniously.

5. Based on a complaint lodged by the second respondent, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.236 of 2021 on

10.05.2021 for the offence under Section 505(2) IPC.

6. Upon completion of investigation, a final report came to be filed on 13.01.2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, which was taken on file as C.C.No.465 of 2023.

Case of the petitioner:

7. The petitioner would contend that he is a Panchayat contractor and a member of a political party, namely, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and that the impugned post was made within a closed Facebook group consisting exclusively of party members. It is further contended that the post in question was merely a forwarded message shared within a private group intended for internal political discussion.

8. The petitioner would assert that the de-facto complainant had infiltrated the said private group by creating a fake account and thereafter maliciously initiated criminal proceedings. According to the petitioner, the post does not promote enmity between any two groups and is at best a political criticism directed against an individual leader.

Grounds for quash:

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would raise, inter alia, the following grounds:

(i) The essential ingredients of Section 505(2) IPC are not made out, as there is no material to show promotion of enmity between identifiable groups.

(ii) The alleged post is a form of political criticism protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

(iii) There is no mens rea or intention to incite hatred or public disorder.

(iv) The alleged electronic evidence is not supported by a valid certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

(v) The prosecution lacks any material indicating actual or imminent public disorder.

(vi) The continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law.

Arguments on either side:

10