Madras High Court Declines To Quash FIR Against BJP's Kesava Vinayagam, But Asks Police Not To Disturb Him

Justice G Jayachandran observed that though the plea for quashing the FIR was not maintainable, the court needed to ensure that the person's liberty was protected. The court thus directed the investigating agency to seek the court's permission to summon Vinayagam, if they found any materials in connection with the case.

On April 7, Rs. 3.99 crore was seized from three train passengers at the Tambaram Railway Station who were close associates of BJP's Tirunelveli candidate Nainar Nagendran. In connection with this offence, FIR was registered for offences under Sections 171C, 171E, 171F, and 188 of the IPC. A case was also registered against Kesava Vinayagam and a summons was issued. Vinayagam had therefore moved the court to quash the FIR.

When Vinayagam challenged the summons initially, the court refused to interfere with the same and remarked that merely because Vinayagam was a high-profile politician, the court could not give any orders.

Vinayagam had challenged another summons issued by the investigating agency asking him to surrender his mobile phone. It was alleged that one of the three men who were arrested from the train had contacted Vinayagam via WhatsApp. Vinayagam challenged the summons and submitted that if the investigating agency wanted to gather information, they could do so through mobile operators, and asking Vinayagam to surrender his phone was a violation of his privacy.

The investigating agency, on the other hand, argued that having custody of the mobile phone was essential for the investigation to gather information regarding the alleged conversations.

The court however agreed with Vinayagam's counsel and remarked that the investigating agency could not gather all information from the cellphone. The court remarked that the cellphone was not a part of the body and there was no assurance that the agency would get the necessary materials from the cellphone.

Noting that Vinayagam had been cooperating with the investigating agency, the court noted that it could not allow the investigating agency to conduct a roving inquiry of a public figure to collect personal details and thus directed the agency to not disturb him.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 237

Case Title: Kesava Vinayagam v State

Case No: Crl OP 12574 of 2024