Crl.OP(MD)No.3555 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 27.02.2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3555 of 2026

and

Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.3853 and 3854 of 2026

1. A.Nagarajan

2. Agni Bala @ Balasubramanian

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Tamilnadu

Rep. by, the Inspector of Police,

Karaikudi North Police Station,

Sivagangai District.

Crime No. 381/2024

... Respondent

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of

BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the Charge Sheet in

S.T.C.No.1132 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Karaikudi and quash the same.

For Petitioner: Mr.K.Kharikharadas

For Respondent: Mr.S.Ravi,

Additional Public Prosecutor

1/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3555 of 2026

ORDER

The present Criminal Original Petition requires this Court to

examine whether the materials placed in the final report, even if

accepted at their face value, disclose the essential ingredients of

Sections 196(1)(a) and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,

and whether the continuation of S.T.C.No.1132 of 2025 would

amount to a legitimate prosecution or an abuse of the process of

Court.

Case of the Prosecution:

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.09.2024, at

about 6.00 p.m., the first petitioner, stated to be the Karaikudi

District Secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party, and the second

petitioner, stated to be the Karaikudi District Secretary of Hindu

Munnani, participated in a public meeting. It is alleged that in the

said meeting, the petitioners spoke against persons belonging to the

Islamic community and that the said speech was made with an

intention to create disharmony between religious groups and to

incite public disturbance and riot.

2/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3555 of 2026

3. Based on the complaint of a Sub-Inspector of Police, the

respondent police registered a case in Crime No.381 of 2024, dated

20.09.2024, for the alleged offences under Sections 196(1)(a) and

353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. After investigation, the

respondent police filed a final report, which was taken on file as

S.T.C.No.1132 of 2025 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi.

Grounds for Quash:

4. The petitioners contend that the final report is legally

unsustainable and factually infirm, as the basic ingredients of

Sections 196(1)(a) and 353(2) BNS are absent. It is their specific case

that the entire prosecution rests only upon police witnesses. The

complainant is a Sub-Inspector of Police and all the three witnesses

cited in the final report are police officials attached to the very same

police station. No independent public witness has been examined

and no member of the allegedly affected community has lodged any

complaint.

3/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3555 of 2026

5. The petitioners further contend that mere political criticism

or expression of opinion in a public meeting cannot be criminalised

unless the speech has a direct and proximate tendency to incite

violence, create hatred or disturb public tranquillity. It is also

contended that the final report does not reproduce the exact words

allegedly spoken by the petitioners. In the absence of the actual

speech, its context, its audience, its effect and its proximate

consequence, the prosecution cannot proceed on vague and omnibus

allegations.

6. The petitioners would further submit that no material has

been produced to show that the alleged speech resulted in communal

disharmony, public disturbance, violence, riot, breach of peace or

any law-and-order situation.

7. The petitioners also rely upon the principle laid down

in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

1

, and contend that even if the

allegations are taken at their face value, no offence is made out and

the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides.

11992 Supp(1) SCC 335

4/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3555 of 2026

8. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully

perused the materials available on record.

Point for Consideration:

9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the final

report in S.T.C.No.1132 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Karaikudi, arising out of Crime No.381 of 2024, discloses

the essential ingredients of Sections 196(1)(a) and 353(2) BNS and

whether the continuation of the said proceedings would amount to

abuse of process of law?

Analysis:

10. The inherent power of this Court under Section 528 BNSS

is intended to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and to

secure the ends of justice. While exercising such jurisdiction, this

Court does not conduct a meticulous trial or weigh the evidence as

an appellate Court. However, where the allegations, even if taken at

their face value, do not constitute the alleged offences, this Court is

not powerless to interdict the prosecution.

5/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3555 of 2026

11. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal

2

, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has held that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the

allegations in the FIR or complaint, even if accepted in their entirety,

do not prima facie constitute any offence, or where the proceedings

are manifestly attended with mala fides or instituted with an ulterior

motive.

12. In prosecutions relating to speech offences, the Court must

examine not merely whether the speech is unpleasant, objectionable

or politically sharp, but whether it crosses the statutory threshold of

promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will, or whether it has a proximate

tendency to disturb public order.

13. Section 196(1)(a) BNS penalises promotion of enmity

between different groups on grounds such as religion, race, place of

birth, residence, language, caste or community, or doing acts

prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony. The essential ingredients

of Section 196(1)(a) BNS are:

i. there must be words, signs, visible representations or other

acts;

21992 Supp(1) SCC 335

6/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3555 of 2026

ii. such words or acts must promote or attempt to promote

enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups;

iii. the promotion must be on grounds such as religion, race,

language, caste, community or similar identity-based grounds;

iv. there must be a clear tendency to disturb public harmony

or tranquillity; and

v. the allegations must disclose the substance, context and

effect of the offending speech.

14. In the present case, the final report states only that the

petitioners spoke against Islamic people in a public meeting and that

such speech was made with an intention to create disharmony.

However, the actual words allegedly spoken by the petitioners have

not been extracted. The final report does not disclose the exact

contents of the speech, the context in which it was made, the

persons who heard it, the immediate reaction of the audience or any

consequent breach of peace.

7/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3555 of 2026

15. A bald allegation that a speech was made against a

particular community, without reproduction of the offending words

or without any material showing its tendency to promote enmity,

cannot satisfy the statutory requirement of Section 196(1)(a) BNS.

The prosecution has not placed any material to show that the alleged

speech caused communal disharmony, led to public disorder,

triggered violence or disturbed public tranquillity. There is no

complaint from any member of the public or from any person

belonging to the allegedly affected community.

16. The mere fact that the petitioners belong to political or

religious organisations cannot by itself lead to a presumption of

criminal intent. Political speech may be critical, harsh or provocative

in the ordinary sense of public debate. But criminality under Section

196(1)(a) BNS arises only when the statutory element of promotion of

enmity or hatred between groups is clearly disclosed. In the absence

of the precise speech and in the absence of any proximate material

showing promotion of enmity, this Court is of the considered view

that the offence under Section 196(1)(a) BNS is not made out.

8/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3555 of 2026

17. Section 353 BNS deals with statements conducing to

public mischief. Sub-section (2) concerns making, publishing or

circulating any statement, false information, rumour or alarming

news, including through electronic means, with intent to create or

promote, or which is likely to create or promote, feelings of enmity,

hatred or ill-will between different groups. The essential

requirements of Section 353(2) BNS are:

i. making, publishing or circulating a statement, false

information, rumour or alarming news;

ii. such statement must be capable of creating or promoting

enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups;

iii. the intention or likelihood contemplated by the section

must be apparent from the material collected; and

iv. the prosecution must disclose what statement was made,

published or circulated.

18. In the present case, there is no material to show

publication or circulation of any false information, rumour or

alarming news. The allegation is only that the petitioners made a

9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3555 of 2026

speech in a public meeting. Even the contents of the alleged speech

have not been set out in the final report.

19. For invoking Section 353(2) BNS, the prosecution must

disclose the statement which is alleged to be false, alarming or

mischievous. Without placing the alleged statement before the Court,

the prosecution cannot invite the Court to presume that the words

used by the petitioners would fall within the mischief of Section

353(2) BNS.

20. The final report does not disclose any material showing

that the alleged speech was circulated, published or electronically

transmitted so as to create public mischief. Nor does it disclose any

public reaction, communal tension or law-and-order consequence.

Therefore, this Court finds that the offence under Section 353(2) BNS

is also not made out.

21. The complainant in the present case is a Sub-Inspector of

Police. The witnesses cited in the final report are also police officials.

10/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3555 of 2026

It is true that the testimony of police witnesses cannot be rejected

merely on the ground that they are police personnel. However, where

the allegation relates to a public meeting and an alleged speech

addressed to members of the public, the total absence of any

independent witness assumes significance at the stage of examining

whether the prosecution has the minimum factual foundation to

proceed.

22. No member of the public has complained. No person from

the allegedly affected community has stated that the speech caused

hatred, fear, disharmony or resentment. No material has been

collected to show any disturbance following the alleged meeting. The

absence of independent material, when seen along with the vague

nature of the allegations and the non-production of the actual

speech, substantially weakens the prosecution case at its very

threshold.

23. An additional and substantial legal infirmity is also seen in

the present prosecution. Section 217 BNSS imposes a restriction on

the Court taking cognizance of certain offences without previous

11/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3555 of 2026

sanction. Under Section 217(1) BNSS, no Court shall take

cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 196 BNS except

with the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State

Government and no Court shall take cognizance of any offence

punishable under Section 353(2) BNS except with the previous

sanction of the Central Government, the State Government or the

District Magistrate.

24. The object of such sanction is not to protect offenders, but

to ensure that prosecutions relating to public speech, communal

harmony and public order are not launched casually, mechanically

or for collateral purposes. In the present case, the materials placed

before this Court do not disclose that previous sanction, as

mandated under Section 217 BNSS, was obtained before cognizance

was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi. When the

statute expressly bars cognizance except with previous sanction, the

absence of sanction goes to the root of the matter. The cognizance

taken in S.T.C.No.1132 of 2025 is therefore vitiated.

12/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3555 of 2026

25. This Court is conscious that speeches having the tendency

to promote communal hatred must be dealt with sternly. The secular

fabric of the Constitution cannot be permitted to be torn by

calculated hate speech. However, every political criticism or every

speech containing sharp ideological expression cannot be

straightaway converted into a criminal prosecution unless the

statutory ingredients are clearly disclosed.

26. Criminal law cannot be set in motion on vague

apprehensions. The prosecution must disclose the exact statement,

its context, its tendency, its public impact and the legal ingredients

of the offence. In the absence of such foundational material, the

continuation of prosecution would amount to compelling the accused

to face the ordeal of trial without a legally sustainable accusation.

27. The present case, viewed in its entirety, appears to rest on

a vague allegation, unsupported by independent public material,

without reproduction of the offending words, without proof of public

disorder and without statutory sanction. Therefore, this Court has

13/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3555 of 2026

no hesitation in holding that the continuation of S.T.C.No.1132 of

2025 would amount to abuse of process of law.

Epilogue:

28. The criminal Court is not a theatre for political rivalry. Nor

is it an instrument to sterilise public speech merely because such

speech may be inconvenient, disagreeable or ideologically opposed to

another point of view. The majesty of criminal law lies in its

disciplined invocation. When invoked without the indispensable

statutory foundation, it ceases to be an instrument of justice and

becomes an instrument of oppression.

29. Communal harmony is undoubtedly a constitutional value

of high order. But the protection of communal harmony cannot be

achieved by prosecutions founded on vague allegations. It must rest

on precise facts, lawful procedure and scrupulous adherence to

statutory safeguards. The Constitution protects both social peace

and individual liberty. The Court must ensure that neither is

sacrificed at the altar of expediency.

14/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3555 of 2026

30. In the case on hand, the final report does not disclose the

words spoken, the public mischief caused, the enmity promoted, the

disturbance created or the sanction obtained. What remains is only a

bare allegation. A criminal trial cannot be permitted to proceed on

such an uncertain and infirm foundation.

31. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The

proceedings in S.T.C.No.1132 of 2025 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, arising out of Crime No.381 of 2024

on the file of the respondent police, for the alleged offences under

Sections 196(1)(a) and 353(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,

are hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petitions are closed. The appearance of the petitioners before the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, stands dispensed with.

01.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes/ No

Sml

15/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3555 of 2026

To

1. The Inspector of Police,

Karaikudi North Police Station,

Sivagangai District.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

16/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP(MD)No.3555 of 2026

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Sml

CRL OP(MD)No.3555 of 2026

01.06.2026

17/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis