Mohamed Faizal vs State Rep By Its

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 15030 Mad
Judgement Date : 8 September, 2022

Madras High Court
Mohamed Faizal vs State Rep By Its on 8 September, 2022
                                                                            Crl.O.P.No.21370 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 08.09.2022

                                                     CORAM:

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                             Crl.O.P.No.21370 of 2022
                                                        &
                                             Crl.M.P.No.13905 of 2022

                     1.Mohamed Faizal

                     2.Nathar oli

                     3.Mohamed Abukasim

                     4.Mohamed Muruthala

                     5.Yasir Ahamed

                     6.Mubeen

                     7.Mohamed Sadiq                                                ...Petitioners

                                                           Vs.

                     State rep by its
                     The Sub Inspector of Police,
                     Thittachery Police Station,
                     Nagapattinam District.
                     (Cr. No.846/2020)                                            ...Respondent
                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
                     praying to call for the records relating to Cr.No.846 of 2020 on the files


                     Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  Crl.O.P.No.21370 of 2022

                     of the respondent herein and quash the same.


                                        For Petitioners    : Mr.J.Abdul Basith
                                        For Respondent     : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
                                                             Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                            ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking quashment of the case in Crime No.846 of 2020 on the file of respondent police.

2. The case of the petitioner is that on 02.10.2020, when Section 144 Cr.P.C ban was in force, the petitioners without following the regulations of Covid~19 protocol, protested in an unlawful manner and shouted slogans against the Government demanding withdrawal of the verdict of acquittal given to the criminals in the Ayodhya Babri Masjid Case.

3. Hence, a case in Crime No.846 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 341, 143, 188 and 269 of IPC has been registered on the same day. The present petition is filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.846 of 2020.

Page 2 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21370 of 2022

4. This petition is filed mainly on the ground that Section 188 IPC is non~cognizable offence and the police has no right to register the case and investigate. Sections 341, 269 and 143 of IPC are concerned, there is no intention on the part of the petitioners to spread the disease to another and the petitioners protested for general public welfare.

5. Heard both sides.

6. In the judgment reported in 2018(2) L.W (Crl.)606 (In Jeevanandhan and others Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District and another) it has been held that the police has no right to file a case under Section 188 IPC and to investigate the same without getting proper permission from the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. Here, there is no material to show that before registering the case, permission of the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate has been obtained. In such circumstances, the respondent has no right to register the case and to investigate the matter. Page 3 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21370 of 2022

7.A detailed guideline has been issued by this Court in the judgment cited supra. On this aspect, Section 188 IPC will not stand against the petitioner. The offence under Sections 341, 143 and 269 of IPC are concerned, as per the contents of the First Information Report, it is seen that the petitioner and others protested in an unlawful manner and shouted slogans during the pandemic period. It is a trivial matter in which no offence of grievous nature is involved. Even though Section 144 Cr.P.C order was in force, during the relevant time the respondent police ought to have warned the petitioners to go in-door, instead of that, they filed a case. It is also not the case of the respondent that at the time of the incident, the petitioners were affected by Covid-19. So the contention that conducting protest during the pandemic period will spread the disease is without any basis. Section 143 IPC is concerned, it specifies the period of punishment for a person who is a member of an unlawful assembly.

8. Section 141 IPC defines unlawful assembly as under:

141. Unlawful assembly -

An assembly of five or more persons is designated Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21370 of 2022 an “unlawful assembly“, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is First To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, 1the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or Second To resist the execution of any law, or of any legalprocess; or Third To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or Fourth By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or Fifth ? By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

9. In the light of the above definition when we look into the final report, we can easily say that it cannot be termed as unlawful assembly. Similarly for attracting offences under Sections 341, 143 and 269 IPC also, there are no materials to show that the petitioners were also affected by Covid-19 virus and because of their assembly virus spread to others. Since in the absence of any such materials on record, the offence under Page 5 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21370 of 2022 Sections 341, 143 and 269 IPC are not attracted.

10. Considering the nature of allegations and the offences involved in this case, this Court is of the considered view that protesting for the welfare of the public should not be a reason for spoiling the future of the petitioners. Unintended casual act should not take away the future of the petitioners. Moreover, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Government is also going to drop all these cases, which have been registered during the pandemic period against the public. Taking all these aspects into account, this court is of the considered view that the First Information Report in in Crime No.846 of 2020 on the file of the respondent is liable to be quashed and the same is quashed.

11. In fine, this petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

08.09.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order mpl Page 6 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.21370 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J mpl To

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Thittachery Police Station, Nagapattinam District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.O.P.No.21370 of 2022 & Crl.M.P.No.13905 of 2022 08.09.2022 Page 7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis