Video Alleging Police Foisted False Cases Against Muslims Doesn't Amount To Offence Of Insulting Religion: Madras High Court

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that the statement, even if taken in entirety, was only a political statement. The court thus noted that an offence under Section 295, as alleged in the present case, was not made out since there was no allegation of any act involving destruction, damage or defilement of any place of worship.

“In the present case, the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, merely relate to a political statement allegedly made by the petitioner. There is no allegation whatsoever of any act involving the destruction, damage or defilement of any place of worship or any object held sacred by any class of persons. Thus, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 295 of IPC are conspicuously absent. Even assuming the statements of the listed witnesses to be true on the face of the record, no offence under Section 295 IPC is made out against the petitioner,” the court said.

The court was hearing a plea filed by Sherip and Jeenath, residents of Coimbatore, seeking to quash the criminal case registered against them.

The case against the men was that they had circulated a recorded video through mobile phone stating that the police were foisting false cases against Muslims and that such acts were now taking place in South India also, like in North India, rendering Muslims unable to live peacefully.

Based on the allegations, a case was registered under Section 295 of IPC, and a final report was also filed.

The court noted that the essential ingredients for attracting an offence under Section 295 of IPC was that there should be destruction, damage or defilement of any place of worship or any object sacred by any class of persons, with the intention of insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that such destruction, damage, or defilement is likely to be regarded as an insult to their religion.

In the present case, the court noted that there was no such destruction, damage, or defilement of any place of worship or sacred object. The court thus opined that the essential ingredients to maintain the offence were not made out.

The court observed that permitting the criminal prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of process of law. Thus, the court allowed the plea and quashed the criminal case.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. B. Kumarasamy

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Case Title: Sherip and Another v State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 374

Case No: CRL OP No. 20001 of 2026