Madras High Court
R.Senthil Murugan vs The State Represented By on 10 December, 2021
Crl.O.P.No.27356 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.27356 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.15671 & 15672 of 2017
R.Senthil Murugan ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by
Inspector of Police (Law and Order)
D5, St.Marina Police Station,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004. ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records in C.C.No.8067 of 2017 on the file of the XIII Metropolitan
Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same, insofar as the charges
(188, 353, 506(i) IPC and 4A(1b) of TNOPPD Act) relating to the petitioner
is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sivagnanasambandan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.27356 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.8067 of 2017 on the file of the XIII Metropolitan
Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, filed against the petitioner for the offences
under Sections 188, 353, 506(i) IPC and 4A(1b) of Tamil Nadu Open Places
(Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 (“TNOPPD Act” for brevity).
2.The crux of the prosecution charges is that, on 26.07.2017 at about
11.45 a.m., the accused, without obtaining any permission, was illegally
affixing a banner on the wall of the DGP's Office at Mylapore, Chennai.
When the same was questioned by the Sub-Inspector of Police, the accused
threatened him and prevented him from removing the banner and also
caused criminal intimidation, thereby, the accused has committed the
aforesaid offences.
3.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
entire prosecution is a motivated one and no charges are made out as against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.27356 of 2017
the petitioner herein. Further, the learned counsel contended that the
complainant and the witnesses are Police officials and therefore, the
allegation that the accused threatened and prevented the Police officials from
removing the banner, is not made out. He further submitted that no offence
under TNOPPD is made out as against the petitioner and therefore, prayed
for quashment of the entire proceedings.
4.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire
materials available on record.
5.On a perusal of the materials, it is seen that the crux of the
allegations is that the accused was fixing a banner on 26.07.2017 without
obtaining any permission from any authority and when the same was
questioned by the Police officials, the accused has allegedly threatened them.
On a perusal of the entire final report, this Court is of the view that, no
offence under Sections 353 and 506(i) IPC is made out. Mere empty threat
will not constitute the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506(i)
IPC. With regard to the offence under Section 188 IPC, it is not the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.27356 of 2017
the prosecution that a promulgation order was in force at the relevant point
of time. Further, to prosecute the offence under Section 188 IPC, complaint-
procedure has to be followed and without a complaint being filed by the
concerned authority, the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence under
Section 188 IPC. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, continuing the
proceedings under Section 188 IPC is also not sustainable.
6.In fine, this Court is inclined to quash the criminal proceedings
insofar as the offences under Sections 353, 506(i) and 188 IPC are
concerned. However, as far as the offence under Section 4A(1b) of
TNOPPD Act is concerned, the accused has to face the trial and establish his
defence before the trial Court.
7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed and
the final report qua Sections 353, 506(i) and 188 IPC alone is quashed and
the proceedings shall continue qua Section 4A(1b) of TNOPPD Act.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.27356 of 2017
8.The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and decide the case
on its own merits, for the offence under Section 4A(1b) of TNOPPD Act,
and dispose the matter as expeditiously as possible.
9.At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
seeks indulgence of this Court to grant an order dispensing with the personal
appearance of the petitioner. Accordingly, the personal appearance of the
petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with, except for receipt of
copies, answering the charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
passing of judgment, or on any other date as may be required by the trial
Court.
10.12.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
mkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.27356 of 2017
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
mkn
To
1.The XIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police (Law and Order)
D5, St.Marina Police Station,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Crl.O.P.No.27356 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.27356 of 2017
10.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
