The prayer in this Criminal Original Petition is to quash the First Information Report in Crime No. 82 of 2026, pending on the file of the respondent – Police.

Upon perusal of the First Information Report, it is seen that the complaint is given by the Junior Personal Assistant of the Minister for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai, alleging that on the social media platforms viz., X and Instagram, the petitioner / accused is wilfully running a deliberate and malicious disinformation campaign, thereby causing public mischief and disturbing public order with reference to the fraudulent registration of land of Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Temple at Pazhani, by private persons. The complaint also mentions the particulars of how the information furnished in the social media posts is false. Therefore, a prayer is made to take action against the accused. The 2 respondent/complainant has also duly enclosed the relevantnd screenshots of the posts.

Upon receipt of the complaint, a case under Crime No. 82 of 2026 for alleged offences under Sections 192 , 353(1)(b) and 353(2) of the BNS, 2023 was registered. The petitioner/accused was arrested and thereafter released on bail. Aggrieved by the registration of the case, the present Criminal Original Petition is filed.

Mr. Saravanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the screenshots furnished with reference to the social media posts would make it clear that these are political posts forming part of a political campaign with reference to the efficiency of the management of the temple and its properties, and would be within the realm of the right to freedom of speech and expression of the petitioner. None of the offences for which the case is registered are made out by considering the social media posts.

The learned counsel would place heavy reliance on the Judgment of this Court in the case of Aadhav Arjuna Vs. State rep by the Inspector of Police and Another (Crl.O.P.No.28737 of 2025 dated 21.11.2025) wherein, after considering all the relevant Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court examined the ingredients of the very same offences and quashed the First Information Report. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Patricia Mukhim Vs. State of Meghalaya and Others , (2021) 15 SCC 35 for the same proposition.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), by pointing out the contents of the social media posts, would submit that the allegations contained therein are false and spurious, and have been made with the intention of tarnishing the image of the Minister. Secondly, the words relating to Lord Muruga were used in such a manner as to create enmity among the various religious groups. A false imputation is also made as if the Government is flittering away with the temple property. The attempt is to whip up disturbance of public order.

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the case records.

Firstly, the indisputable background facts have to be taken into consideration. It is seen that the land in question is situated at the foothills of the revered Arulmighu Pazhani Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple at Pazhani. A private person claims that the property belongs to a particular trust, whereas the HR & CE Department maintains that the property belongs to a Kattalai attached to the said temple. In this regard, it is stated that the dispute had reached finality and was ultimately decided in favour of the temple and the HR & CE Department.

On 06.07.2026, a sale deed was presented by one Murugadoss, claiming to be a trustee, conveying the said property in favour of D.Sethupathi and K. Vellathurai. When the said sale deed was presented for registration, the Sub-Registrar passed an order refusing to register the do