Madras High Court
Unknown vs The State Rep. By on 8 April, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.6632 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.6632 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.4429 & 4430 of 2021
1.Chandra Sekar
2.Elangovan
3.Thangaraj
4.Charles
5.Jayaprakash
6.Senthil Kumaran
7.Prabhakaran
8.Raj
9.Balu
10.Salamen Sacheel
11.Samuvel
12.Magesh
13.Dhayalan
14.Neelamegam
15.Balan
16.Vadivel Raja
17.Murugesan
18.Veeramani
19.Sridhar
20.Chithiraivel
21.Annamalai
22.Aari
23.Murugan
24.Ameerjan
Page No.1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.6632 of 2021
25.Alaxsandar
26.Bharathidhasan
27.Gajendran
28.Hemachalam
29.Madhan
30.Rangarajan
31.Gomahan
32.Murali
33.Vijay
34.Aruldass
35.Rajan
36.Francklin
37.Sowriammal
38.Kamachi
39.Chandra
40.Thamirabharani
41.Munusamy
42.Vinoth
43.Baskar
44.Senthil Kumar
45.Selvam
46.Dhawooth Bee
47.Vijaya
48.Bhula
49.Bharsona
50.Lakshmi
51.Karpagam
52.Kalaivani
53.Valarmathi
54.Shelena
55.Malathai
56.Queen Anitha
57.Indhara Rani
58.Ranuga
59.Mahalakshmi
Page No.2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.6632 of 2021
60.Sabiya
61.Chandriga
62.Bashisha
63.Sumiya
64.Mahokari
65.Maghurunisha
66.Kalaiyarasi
67.Geetha
68.Pramila
69.Anjali ... Petitioners
Versus
1.The State Rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
K-2, Ayanavaram Police Station,
Chennai.
Crime No.560 of 2017.
2.Chokkalingam
Sub-Inspector of Police,
K-2, Ayanavaram Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the proceedings
in C.CNo.8274 of 2017, pending before the learned V Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Egmore at Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sguendran
For 1st Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
Page No.3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.6632 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioners, who are facing trial before the learned V
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.NO.8274 of 2017, for
offence under Sections 143, 188 and 341 IPC, have filed the above
Quash Petition.
2.On information, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant the Sub-
Inspector of Police, K-2 Ayanavaram Police Station, Chennai registered a
case in Crime No.560 of 2017 on 13.03.2017 against the petitioners. On
completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against them,
listing five witnesses as LW1 to LW5 and documents.
3.The gist of the case is that on 13.03.2017, at about 10.15 a.m.,
the 2nd respondent/LW1 along with the Police party was on duty, at that
time, near Anderson Road Junction, Mylappa Street, Ayanavaram before
the Fair Price Shop, A1 being a political functionary of a political party
headed a group of 41 males and 28 females totally 69 persons and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.6632 of 2021
unlawfully assembled before the Fair Price Shop without any permission
from the authorities concerned and raised slogans against the
Government for not providing pulses and palm oil. When the 2nd
respondent intervened and insisted them to disburse, the
petitioner/protesters failed to do so. Hence, a complaint was lodged and
on completion of investigation charges sheet came to be filed before the
learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the same was
taken on file as C.C.No.8274 of 2017.
4.The contention of the petitioners is that in this case, LW1 to LW5
are all public servants and no private person was examined and cited as
witness during investigation. The case of the prosecution is that the
petitioners assembled before the Fair Price Shop which is a public place
and made protest for not providing ration articles. It is highly
improbable that no public witness was present in the place of occurrence
and no reason has been given for non examination of public witnesses.
In this case, the FIR in Crime No.560 of 2017 was registered for offence
under Section 188 IPC. As per Section 188 IPC, only the public servant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.6632 of 2021
is authorized to lodge a complaint and Section 195 Cr.P.C is clear
embargo as to how a complaint to be registered and investigated by the
Police for offence under Section 188 IPC. In this case, there is no
complaint from the public servant. Hence, the registration of the FIR its
void ab initio and continuing the investigation for other offences is also
not permitted.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court
in catena of judgments have clearly held that the police personnel are not
empowered to register an FIR under Section 188 IPC. There is nothing
to show that on the date of occurrence, there was any prohibitory order in
force and whether that order was communicated in the prescribed manner
is also not known. The learned counsel further submitted that this Court
in the cases of “Madhan Mohan Versus The State and another in
Crl.O.P.Nos.23129 & 23127 of 2019” on the similar grounds, quashed
the proceedings against the accused. Further, in the case of
“Jeevanandham and others Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police and
another reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl. 606”, had given an authoritative
pronouncement regarding the cases to be registered and investigated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.6632 of 2021
under Section 188 IPC and also issued certain guidelines, which is
violated in this case
6.The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the
petitioners raised slogans and held demonstration against the
Government for the ineffectiveness in distribution of ration articles,
which cannot be construed as unlawful act. Right to Dissent is the
Hallmark of Democracy, the petitioners only expressed their displeasure
which is their fundamental right. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the
proceedings against the petitioners.
7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents submitted that in this case, a complaint was lodged by the 2nd
respondent/the Sub Inspector of Police, K-2 Ayanavaram Police Station,
Chennai/LW1. When he was on patrol duty along with LW2 to LW4 near
Fair Price Shop, found the petitioners under the leadership of A1, had
assembled and raised slogans against the Government and also caused
disturbance to the public. Timely intervention of the respondents, further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.6632 of 2021
law and problem were averted. The petitioners without getting
permission from the authorities concerned have formed themselves into
an unlawful assembly restrained the others and caused public
disturbance. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed
in this case.
8.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials
this Court finds that the petitioners have only raised their objection with
regard to the shortage and non supply of ration articles to the general
public. The purpose for having a ration shop is to make available the
essential items for the needy persons, at affordable price. The pulses and
the palm oil are the daily cooking needs of the general public and for the
shortage and non supply, they have shown their displeasure. Raising
slogans against the Government itself would not amount to any
commission of offence, which is a fundamental right under Constitution
of India.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.6632 of 2021
9.From the statement of the witnesses, it is seen that LW1 to LW5
present in the scene of occurrence and according to them, the petitioners
raised slogans against the Government and with regard to shortage of non
supply of ration articles, they did not do anything more. Admittedly in
this case, the occurrence had taken place in the public place and view, no
public or independent witness examined by the prosecution, which
causes serious doubt on the veracity of the complaint. Further, this Court
in the case of “Jeevanandham and others Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of
Police and another reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl. 606” had clearly held
that the police officials are not empowered to register a case under
Section 188 IPC and th same is barred under Section 195 Cr.P.C. There
is no material to show that there was any promulgation of any prohibitory
order which was communicated to the public and there was any
disobedience by the petitioners. Further, in consequence to the protest,
the prosecution failed to show whether any trouble injuries occurred.
Thus, the respondent Police did not follow the guidelines issued by this
Court in Jeevanandham (Cited Supra). In several cases, this Court
quashes the proceedings against the accused/protesters on the similar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.6632 of 2021
ground.
10.In the result, the proceedings in C.C.No.8274 of 2017, on the
file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai is hereby
quashed against the petitioners. This Criminal Original Petition is
allowed accordingly. Consequently, the connected Criminal
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
08.04.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vv2
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
K-2, Ayanavaram Police Station,
Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.6632 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
CRL.O.P.No.6632 of 2021
08.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
