Madras High Court
Premkumar vs State Represented By on 22 December, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.14089 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.14089 of 2021
1.Premkumar
2.Yuvaraj
3.Dinesh
4.Lokesh ... Petitioners
Versus
State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
M-5, Ennore Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.571/2018 on
the file of the respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Parthipan
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.571 of 2018, on the file of the respondent Police.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.14089 of 2021
2.The gist of the case is that on 18.07.2018, when the Sub
Inspector of Police attached to the respondent Police along with other
Police personnels were on patrol duty, at about 12.00 p.m., 37 persons
under the leadership of the petitioners 1 and 2 and one Sivasankar had
assembled in public place without getting permission and raised slogans
against the public functionary and caused disturbance to the public and
free movement of traffic. When they were asked to disperse and not to
create any law and order problem, they failed to do so. Hence, they were
arrested in the spot by the respondent Police and a case in Crime No.571
of 2018 was registered, for offence, under Sections 143, 341, 188 and
353 IPC, against which the present Criminal Original Petition.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time
of occurrence, the petitioners are law college students, who shown protest
in a democratic manner which is a right guaranteed under the
Constitution of India. The petitioners along with others held protest in
the corner of the road. It is not the case that the petitioners and others
blocked the free movement of traffic and caused any inconvenience to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.14089 of 2021
general public. The petitioner and other accused are law college students,
who were raised slogans against the public functionary and nothing more.
The petitioners are the students of the Chennai Dr.Ambedkar Government
Law College, Pudupakkam. The petitioners were not aware about the
registration of the above case and they came to know about the same,
only when they approached for getting enrolment in the Tamil Nadu Bar
Counsil. The petitioners on dedication and hard work had completed the
law course and they have a big aim in this field. Due to the pendency of
the FIR, the petitioners unable to get enroled and their entire carrier is
now questionable.
4.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.14089 of 2021
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
under Section 188 IPC and also issued certain guidelines, which is
violated in this case. 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 investigation against the
petitioners.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1 st
respondent Police submitted that the Sub Inspector of Police attached to
the respondent Police Station along with other Police were on patrol duty
and found the petitioners and other accused had formed themselves
unlawfully without any permission near Bharath Nagar Junction, Ennore
and started raising slogans against the public dignitaries without any
reason or cause. When they were asked to disperse, they failed to do so.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.14089 of 2021
Hence, the 1st respondent Police has registered a case against the
petitioners and other accused. Only during investigation, the contention
of the learned counsel for the petitioners to be ascertained and hence, he
prayed for dismissal of this petition.
6.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
7.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the
materials, this Court finds that the petitioners have only raised their
objection in a democratic manner which is a right guaranteed under the
Constitution of India. Raising slogans against the Government itself
would not amount to any commission of offence, which is a fundamental
right under Constitution of India. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.14089 of 2021
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 the 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 FIR against the accused/protesters on the similar ground.
8.The petitioners are the students of the law college, who are
normally active and be the first persons to show protest against any
irregularities. Thus, the allegations made in the charge sheet, even if
taken at face value and accepted in entirety do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out a case against the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.14089 of 2021
9.In view of the above, the FIR in Crime No.571 of 2018, on the
file of the respondent Police, is hereby quashed against the petitioners
and other accused, who are similarly placed. Accordingly, this Criminal
Original Petition is allowed.
22.12.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vv2
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
M-5, Ennore Police Station,
Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.14089 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
CRL.O.P.No.14089 of 2021
22.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
