Madras High Court
J.Sikkanthar Batcha vs State Rep By on 16 June, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7822 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED : 16.06.2021
DATE ON WHICH PRONOUNCED : 25.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7822 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.3996 of 2021
1.J.Sikkanthar Batcha
2.Ubedullah
3.S.Syed Ibrahim
4.H.Jafar Hussain
5.A.Nawaz Khan
6.J.Mohamed Yasin ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1to 6
Vs.
1.State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
South Gate Police Station,
Madurai District. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.S.Vanniyan ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto
Complainant
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7822 of 2021
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for records of the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.837/2020 on the file of
Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbu Nithi,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the impugned charge
sheet in C.C.No.837/2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai.
2.The case of the prosecution:-
(i) The second respondent is the defacto complainant. He was
working as a Head Constable in B5, South Gate ( Law & Order) Police
Station, Madurai City. On 22.07.2019, at about 10.15 a.m, when he was in
patrolling duty near the Vadamalaiyan Hospital, Chinnakadai Junction,
South Marret Street, South Gate, Madurai City, he found the petitioner
along with some other persons conducted agitation against the Madurai
Corporation for non supply of sufficient drinking water. They staged a
road roko agitation. He informed the petitioners that it is the main route,
traffic is also high and also they must disperse. But, the petitioner and other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7822 of 2021
did not hear the request made by him. So, with this allegation, he lodged a
complaint with the first respondent. Upon which, a case in Crime No.282 of
2019 was registered. Investigation also undertaken by the first respondent
police and after completing the investigation, they filed a final report before
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai. Which was taken on filed
in C.C.No.837 of 2020.
3. Seeking quashment of the final report, this petition is filed mainly
on the ground that what was demanded is drinking water to the locality to
which the petitioners belong, which can not be construed as illegal or
unlawful. Moreover, none of the offences mentioned in the final report
attract any of the ingredients mentioned in those Sections against these
petitioners. He would also rely upon the judgment of this Court in
Jeevanandham and others Vs The Inspector of Police,
Velayuthampalayam Police Station Karur District, reported in 2018 (2)
L.W.(Crl.) 606 and further judgments.
4. Heard both sides.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7822 of 2021
5. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on
22.07.2019, at about 10.15 a.m, staged a road roko agitation near the
Vadamalaiyan Hospital, Chinnakadai Junction, South Marret Street, South
Gate, Madurai City, demanding sufficient supply of water to the locality to
which the petitioners belong. So, according to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, it is a peaceful assembly and agitation was also peaceful and they
did not cause any nuisance to the public or indulged in breach of peace in
that area. Water is a basic necessity, which the Corporation bound to supply
sufficiently.
6. A similar situation in Crl.OP.No.21965 of 2019, dated 21.08.2019
in M.Nithyanandam Vs. State and Other, this Court has quashed the final
report, which was filed under Sections 143, 341 and 283 IPC. In that case,
the village people gathered in the place of occurrence and sat on the public
road and staged a road roko agitation demanding supply of water. This
Court by observing that food, water and shelter are the basic necessities for
human life. Protesting and demanding basic amenities through a peaceful
agitation cannot be construed as unlawful. As mentioned earlier, it may not
be construed or consider as illegal demand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7822 of 2021
7. So, the consistent view of this Court that peaceful agitation or
protest demanding basic requires or necessities is permissible under the
democratic setup. That cannot be construed as unlawful. Unless the first
respondent is able to say that it turned violent, but, there is no such
averments.
8. Section 141 IPC defines unlawful assembly in the following
words:-
“ 141.Unlawful assembly – An assembly of five
or more persons is designated and 'unlawful
assembly', if the common object of the persons
composing that assembly is -
First – To overawe by criminal force, or show of
criminal force, (the 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 legal process; or
Third – To commit any mischief or criminal
trespass, or other offence; or
Foruth – By means of criminal force, or show of
criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7822 of 2021
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.
Explanation – An assembly which was not
unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become
and unlawful assembly.”
9. So, from the above observation, the assembly cannot be termed as
unlawful one. There is also no material collected in the course of
investigation, to the effect that the ban order under Section 32 of Police Act,
was also in force. So, none of the ingredients are attracted.
10. The second allegation is that the petitioners committed offence
under Section 341 IPC. For attracting this offence also the ingredients of
Section 339 IPC must be fulfilled.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7822 of 2021
11. Regarding the allegations 353 IPC, a mere bald averments made
to the effect that the petitioners challenged the defacto complainant and
other police officials dared to remove them. So, this will not attract any of
the ingredients mentioned in Section 353 IPC and it is also extracted
hereunder:-
“ 353.Assault or criminal force to deter public
servant from discharge of his duty – Whoever assaults
or uses criminal force to any person being a public
servant in the execution of his duty as such public
servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person
from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in
consequence of anything done or attempted to be done
by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as
such public servant, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
- So, this bald allegation will not attract the ingredients of the Section
353 IPC.
12. The next offence is 506 (i) IPC. Here also, in the final report it
has been mentioned that the defacto complainant and other police officials
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7822 of 2021
were criminally intimidated by the petitioners by showing their hands.
Section 503 IPC defines 'criminal intimidation' in the following words:-
“ 503. Criminal intimidation – Whoever
threatens another with any injury to his person,
reputation or property, or to the person or reputation
of any one in whom that person is interested, with
intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that
person to do any act which he is not legally bound to
do, or to omit to do any act which that person is
legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat, commits criminal
intimidation.
Explanation – A threat to injure the reputation
of any deceased person in whom the person
threatened is interested, is within this section.”
- So, the allegation mentioned in the final report will not attract any
of the ingredients under Section 503 IPC also.
13. The authorities failed to pacify the petitioners promising to fulfil
their grievance. Without doing such a duty, it is unfortunate that the
petitioners have been prosecuted for the offence mentioned in the final
report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7822 of 2021
14. The next allegation is that the petitioners committed offence
under Section 291 IPC. It defines 'continuance of nuisance after injunction
to discontinue' in the following words:-
“291.continuance of nuisance after injunction to
discontinue - Whoever repeats or continues a public
nuisance, having been enjoined by any public servant
who has lawful authority to issue such injunction not to
repeat or continue such nuisance, shall be punished with
simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine, or with both. ”
- So, the allegation mentioned in the final report will not attract any
of the ingredients under Section 291 IPC.
15. A reading of the averments made in the final report also will not
attract any of the ingredients mentioned in this petition. As mentioned
earlier, there is no material on record to show that they assembled in the
place of occurrence with an intention to create nuisance.
16. So, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to quash the
proceedings initiated by the first respondent and taken cognizance by the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7822 of 2021
17. In view of the above, proceedings in C.C.No.837/2020 on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, is quashed and the
Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.06.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
dss
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 Judicial Magistrate No.IV,
Madurai,
2.The The Inspector of Police,
South Gate Police Station,
Madurai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7822 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
dss
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7822 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.3996 of 2021
25.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
