Madras High Court
C.Manikandan vs The Sub- Inspector Of Police on 12 July, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 9150 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9150 of 2021
and Crl.M.P(MD)No.4678 of 2021
C.Manikandan ... Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
The Sub- Inspector of Police,
Puthiamputhur Police Station,
Thoothukudi District ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime
No.201 of 2020 on the file of the respondent and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.Banuprasath
For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking a direction to quash the First
Information Report in Crime No.201 of 2020 on the file of the respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 9150 of 2021
3. The case of the petitiones is that when Section 144 Cr.P.C ban was
in force by order dated 2403.2020, the petitioner was found walking near
Puthiyamputhur Selliyamman Koil on 07.05.2020 without proper reason.
Hence, a case in Crime No.201 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 188
and 269 IPC has been registered on the same day after getting permission
from the Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin. The present petition is filed to
quash the First Information Report in Crime No.201 of 2020.
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. Section 269 IPC is concerned, there is no intention on the part
of the petitioner to spread the disease to another and simply he was walking
in that area.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 9150 of 2021
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.
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 Section 269 IPC is concerned, as per the
contents of the First Information Report, it is seen that the petitioner was
simply walking near Selliyammal Temple. 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 petitioner 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
petitioner was affected by Covid-19. So the contention that walking along
the street during the pandemic period will spread the disease is without any
basis.
8.Moreover, it is seen that the petitioner has been selected for
recruitment of Constable in Central Industrial Security Force for which he
has also produced the order dated 12.05.2021, wherein it is found that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 9150 of 2021
petitioner has been selected and about to be inducted for training purpose.
During the police verification, it came to notice that the petitioner is
involved in this case and so a positive report could not be sent.
9. Considering the nature of allegations and the offences involved in
this case, I am of the considered view that walking along the street without
any reason should not be a reason for spoiling the future of the petitioner.
Unintended casual act should not take away the future of the petitioner.
More over, 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, I
am of the considered view that the First Information Report in in Crime No.
201 of 2020 on the file of the respondent is liable to be quashed and the
same is quashed.
10. In fine, this petition is allowed. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
CM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 9150 of 2021
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Sub- Inspector of Police,
Puthiamputhur Police Station,
Thoothukudi District
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No. 9150 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN, J.,
CM
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9150 of 2021
and Crl.M.P(MD)No.4678 of 2021
12.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
