Madras HC Quashes FIR Against Man Who Crowdfunded Temple Idol Restoration, Finds No Misappropriation

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy found no criminal intention where the entire crowdfunded amount of over Rs. 33 lakhs remained intact and was directed to the temple.

The High Court of Judicature at Madras has quashed a criminal case registered against S. Karthik Gopinath, a resident of Avadi, Chennai, who had used the crowdfunding platform MILAAP to raise money for the restoration of temple idols damaged at a sub-temple of Arulmigu Mathurakaaliamman Thirukoil, Siruvachur, without prior authorisation from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Department. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, sitting singly, allowed the Section 482 of Cr.P.C. petition on 5 August 2026 after finding that not a rupee of the collected funds had been misappropriated and that the entire amount was lying in a fixed deposit to the credit of the criminal case before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur. The court directed the full sum, along with accrued interest, to be transferred directly to the temple.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The matter arose from Crime No. 4 of 2022 registered by the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Commissionerate of Police, Avadi. The FIR alleged offences under Section 406 (criminal breach of trust), Section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The complaint was lodged on 27 May 2022 by the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Mathurakaaliamman Thirukoil, Siruvachur, who was the second respondent in the petition. The case against Karthik Gopinath was that he had posted messages on social media and digital platforms representing himself as conducting renovation work for the temple and collected money from the public through MILAAP without the authorisation of the HR & CE authorities or the temple management, and had allegedly misappropriated the funds so collected.

Karthik Gopinath had been arrested at an earlier stage and subsequently enlarged on bail. He then filed the present petition seeking to quash the FIR.

How the Crowdfunding Campaign Unfolded

On 6 October 2021, one Nathan had damaged idols at Arulmigu Periyasamy Chelliamman Vagayra and Sengamalayan Thirukoil at Siruvachur, which are sub-temples of Arulmigu Mathurakaaliamman Temple. A case in Crime No. 1371 of 2021 was registered in connection with that damage.

Four days later, on 10 October 2021, Karthik Gopinath uploaded a YouTube video referring to the idol damage and sought crowdfunding for their restoration. Donations were routed through MILAAP, which the petitioner described as functioning like an escrow account — funds would be held by the portal and released directly for the stated purpose rather than passing to the individual. A total sum of Rs. 33,28,924 was collected. On 14 October 2021, the petitioner gave stop instructions to the portal.

A quotation was obtained from M/s. Ahm Agasthiya Arts and Crafts on 15 December 2021 for the restoration work. It was only after this, on 29 December 2021, that the petitioner wrote to the HR & CE Department seeking permission for renovation of the temple idols using the personal funds raised. The then Executive Officer issued a letter of consent the same day for obtaining further sanction from the Commissioner, HR & CE Department.

A second quotation was obtained from Gandhimathi Sirpakalaikoodam on 14 March 2022 for constructing seven idols. On 15 April 2022, the petitioner met the temple authorities to discuss the restoration plan. A new Executive Officer took charge on 25 April 2022. On 30 April 2022, Rs. 9,001 was paid as an advance to a Sthapathi, and on 2 May 2022, Rs. 1,00,000 was withdrawn and sent to one Ramanathan Govindhasamy, claiming to be a Sthapathi.

On 6 May 2022, the new Executive Officer issued a legal notice to the petitioner stating that his collection and spending of money on his own was impermissible. Karthik Gopinath replied stating that the funds had been collected only for the specific renovation purpose, were not received by him personally, and would be spent only for that purpose. The complaint was lodged shortly thereafter, on 27 May 2022.

The Legal Issue: Criminal Intention Without Misappropriation

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhinav Parthasarathy, argued that there was no intention to misappropriate the collected funds. The argument was that the only fault that could be attributed was the failure to obtain prior approval from the HR & CE authorities before commencing the crowdfunding campaign. That failure, counsel submitted, did not by itself constitute a criminal offence capable of sustaining a charge under Section 406 IPC. For Section 420 IPC to be attracted, dishonest intention had to be proved, and none existed. Accordingly, Section 66D of the IT Act, which concerned impersonation through electronic means, could not stand as a standalone offence if the predicate offences were not made out.

The Government Advocate (Criminal Side), Mr. R. Rajasekaran, appearing for the first respondent State, relied on the counter-affidavit and argued that crowdsourcing through MILAAP, a private application, without HR & CE permission justified registration of the case and investigation. Whether dishonest intention existed could not, he submitted, be determined merely on the petitioner's own assertion.

How the Bench Reasoned

The court's analysis turned on a specific factual inquiry: had any money actually been misappropriated? When the court put this question to both sides during the hearing, it emerged that the entire amount originally held in the MILAAP portal had been withdrawn and was lying to the credit of Crime No. 4 of 2022 before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, invested in a fixed deposit bearing No. 13977210.

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy found that neither the Government Advocate nor the counsel for the temple was in a position to point to any money that had been misappropriated or spent for purposes other than the renovation. The only disbursements made were the amounts paid to the Sthapathi.

The court held: “From the inception and upto the end, there is no any dishonest intention.” There was no allegation of wrongful gain or wrongful loss because the entire amount had been faithfully kept and handed over to the court account. Without a finding of dishonest intention, neither Section 406 nor Section 420 IPC could be said to be made out. Once those offences fell away, Section 66D of the IT Act — which the FIR invoked for posting on an electronic channel — could not sustain independently.

The court also recorded that both the petitioner and the other parties were in agreement that the full amount should now be handed over to the temple to carry out the renovation of the idols or other temple works.

Outcome

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy allowed CRL OP No. 13166 of 2022 and made the following directions:

Crime No. 4 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Avadi, as against Karthik Gopinath, stands quashed.

The entire sum lying to the credit of Crime No. 4 of 2022 before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, invested in fixed deposit No. 13977210, along with accrued interest, shall be paid out to Arulmigu Mathurakaaliamman Thirukoil, Siruvachur. The Executive Officer is entitled to file a formal application before the trial court, and the amount will be transferred directly to the temple account. The temple may utilise the amount for renovation of the idols or any other renovation purposes.

The bank accounts of Karthik Gopinath, which had been frozen in connection with the case, are ordered to be de-frozen. The connected miscellaneous petitions, Crl. M.P. Nos. 7078 and 13234 of 2022, are closed.