While quashing an FIR against an office-bearer of the Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist), CPI (ML), a single judge of the Madras High Court had this to say about the group:-
"The petitioner herein is an important office-bearer of a not-so-important political party. CPI (ML) is now an over-ground organization which contests elections also. Paper warriors are also entitled to fantasise that they are swadeshi Che Guevaras."
An FIR was registered against the Petitioner, Mathivanan at the Vadipatty Police Station, Madurai District of Tamil Nadu for the offences under Sections 120B, 122, 505(1)(b) and 507 of the IPC.
The FIR was registered after the Petitioner posted some photographs from his trip to the Sirumalai hills with the caption "Trip to Sirumalai for shooting practice".
He was arrested by Police and produced before the Magistrate, who refused remand.
The Petitioner then approached the High Court praying for quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of CrPC.
Justice G. R. Swaminathan while analysing Section 122 of IPC held that the provision has to be strictly construed. The Court noted that except giving the title to the photographs amateurishly taken on the occasion of his trip to Sirumalai hills, the petitioner has done nothing else. Court noted that no weapon or proscribed material was recovered from the petitioner. The Court held that the Petitioner neither had the intention nor committed any act towards preparation for the commission of the offence.
With respect to Section 505(1)(b) of the IPC, the Court held that the same does not apply since provision also can be invoked only if the offending act induces or is likely to induce any person to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquillity.
The Court held that Section 507 IPC also will not apply since the provision can be invoked only if the person sending the communication had concealed his identity. The Court observed that "Invocation of this provision makes me laugh".
The Court also held that Section 120 B of IPC will not apply since the petitioner is the sole accused.
Accordingly, the FIR was quashed as absurd and as an abuse of the legal process.