"No Dishonest Intention": Madras High Court Quashes Case Against YouTuber Karthik Gopinath For Collecting Money For Temple Restoration

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy noted that although the money was collected without prior approval from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, he did not have any criminal intention of misappropriating the funds. The court also noted that there was no allegation of wrongful gain or wrongful loss since the money was duly handed over to the court account.

“In view thereof, I find no criminal intention of misappropriating the amount by the petitioner. Similarly, there is no allegation of wrongful gain or wrongful loss inasmuch as the amount is duly and faithfully handed over to the Court account. From the inception and upto the end, there is no any dishonest intention. In view thereof, the offences against the petitioner is also not made out,” the court said.

The court noted that the parties had also reached a consensus that the entire amount could be handed over to the temple for its purpose of carrying out the renovation work of idols and other temple works.

Taking note of the same, the court quashed the criminal case registered against Karthik. The court directed that the entire sum collected by Karthik, which was lying on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, shall be paid to Arulmigu Mathurakaaliamman Temple, for which it was collected.

The court added that the executive officer would be entitled to file a formal application before the trial court and the amount can be directly transferred to the temple account. The court remarked that it was open for the temple to utilise the amount for renovation work or other purposes.

Karthik was charged with offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for allegedly collecting funds from the public for the renovation of Arulmigu Madhura Kaliamman Temple at Siruvachar in Perambalur, and not using the said amount for the same.

Karthik argued that he did not have any intention of misappropriation. He argued that mere allegation that he did not obtain prior permission from the authorities, per se, is not a criminal offence. He argued that the factum of criminal misappropriation had to be proved and there was no dishonest intention.

The Government, on the other hand, argued that the question of whether there was dishonest intention or not could not be determined merely on the ipse dixit of the petitioner.

However, noting that there was nothing to show any intention of misappropriation, the court was inclined to quash the case and ordered accordingly.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Abhinav Parthasarathy

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. R. Rajasekaran Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl. Side), Mr. S. Surya, Government Advocate

Case Title: S Karthik Gopinath v State and Another

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 379

Case No: CRL OP No. 13166 of 2022