Temple Crowdfunding Not Cheating Unless Funds Are Misused: Madras HC Quashes FIR Against YouTuber Karthik Gopinath

Collecting donations online for a public cause without prior government approval may invite administrative objections, but it does not automatically amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust, the Madras High Court has held while quashing an FIR against YouTuber S. Karthik Gopinath over a crowdfunding campaign that raised more than Rs 33 lakh for the restoration of damaged temple idols.

The bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy ruled that the prosecution had failed to show that Gopinath had dishonestly misappropriated any part of the funds or intended to cheat donors. Finding the essential ingredients of the offences absent, court set aside the FIR registered in 2022 under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC (now Sections 316 and 318 of the BNS) and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.

The case arose after idols at Arulmigu Periyasamy Chelliamman Vagayra Temple, an associated temple of Arulmigu Mathurakaaliamman Temple at Siruvachur, were allegedly vandalised in October 2021. Soon thereafter, Gopinath uploaded a YouTube video appealing for public contributions to restore the idols and launched a crowdfunding campaign through the online platform MILAAP. Around Rs 33.28 lakh was collected.

According to the prosecution, Gopinath had no authorisation from the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Department or the temple to collect money in the temple's name. It alleged that he had illegally collected donations and misappropriated them, leading to registration of the FIR.

Did the temple crowdfunding amount to cheating?

The high court answered this in the negative.

Court noted that although the petitioner had not obtained prior approval before raising funds, the investigation revealed that the money had remained secure and was eventually deposited before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, where it had been invested in a fixed deposit. During the hearing, neither the State nor the temple authorities could identify any amount that had been diverted or misappropriated by the petitioner. The only expenditure shown was payment made to a sculptor engaged for the proposed restoration work.

Court accepted the petitioner's argument that the absence of prior permission could not, by itself, establish criminal breach of trust or cheating unless there was evidence of dishonest intention or misappropriation.

Why did the Madras high court quash the FIR?

Justice Chakravarthy observed that the record disclosed no criminal intention from the beginning of the transaction until its conclusion.

Court specifically found that there was "no criminal intention of misappropriating the amount", no wrongful gain to the petitioner and no corresponding wrongful loss to any person. Since the money had remained intact and was available for the very purpose for which it had been collected, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not satisfied, it held.

Noting that all parties agreed that the funds should ultimately be used for the temple, the high court directed that the entire amount lying in the court deposit, along with accrued interest, be transferred to Arulmigu Mathurakaaliamman Temple. The Executive Officer was permitted to seek release of the money before the trial court, and the temple was allowed to utilise it for restoration of the damaged idols or any other renovation works.

Consequently, the FIR was quashed and the petitioner's frozen bank accounts were ordered to be defreezed.

Case Title: S.Karthik Gopinath vs State and Another

Order Date: August 5, 2026

Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy