Youtuber Moves Madras High Court For Quashing FIR In Connection With Misappropriating Funds Collected For Temple Renovation

Youtuber S. Karthik Gopinath has moved the Madras High Court seeking to quash the FIR filed against him for allegedly misappropriating funds worth several lakhs, collected for renovation of the Arulmigu Madhura Kaliamman Temple in Perambalur district. The Police had also filed an application for custodial interrogation.

When the matter came up before Justice N Sathish Kumar on Tuesday, the court adjourned the hearing while directing the Police to submit the details of misappropriation. In the meanwhile, the court directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide upon the bail application moved by the petitioner on Wednesday itself.

The petitioner 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.

The petitioner contended that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. He further claimed that the procedures were not duly followed during his arrest, he was not furnished with a copy of the complaint nor was his family given an arrest memorandum. Thus, the authorities were in violation of the decision of the Supreme Court in D.K Basu case. 

The petitioner also submitted that no preliminary enquiry was conducted by the authorities before his arrest. He contended that the Executive officer of the temple did not provide any material to show that the funds of the temple had been misappropriated by the petitioner. 

He also informed the court that the crowdfunding initiative was undertaken with the knowledge and consent of the Executive officer of the temple to rehabilitate and reconstruct the temple. The amount, funded through Milaap, was lying in the third party account and could not be withdrawn for any other purpose other than for the construction of temples and idols. He stated that he had not withdrawn or spent any amount for his personal use.

Thus, the petitioner contended that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that he had committed an offence which is non-bailable in nature since there was no evidence on record against him.

The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner did not have any authority to collect the funds and thus was acting without any authority.

Case Title: S Karthik Gopinath v. State and another

Case No: Crl OP 13166 of 2022