Madras High Court
Beer Mydeen vs State Rep By on 16 June, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7846 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED : 16.06.2021
DATE ON WHICH PRONOUNCED : 24.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7846 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.4015 & 4017 of 2021
1.Beer Mydeen
2.Beer Mydeen
3.Alla Pitchai
4.Beer Mydeen
5.Beer Kohammed
6.Syed Ali
7.Hussain
8.Rajendran ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1,2,3,7,8,10,11 & 13
Vs.
1.State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Kayathar Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
(Crime No.69 of 2017) ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Karuthapandiyan ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7846 of 2021
Complainant
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for records pertaining to the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.607 of 2017 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti and quash the same
as illegal as so far as the petitioners concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Thirumal
For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbu Nithi,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the charge sheet in
S.T.C.No.607 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Kovilpatti in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent has
lodged a complaint before the first respondent with the following
allegations:-
(i) On 06.03.2017, at about 10.00 a.m, the petitioner and the other
accused persons as well as the some other village people belong to the
Manamkathan Village, gathered in the place of occurrence namely, the main
road at Kayathar to Devarkulam road and demanded to renovate the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7846 of 2021
Manamkathan Village road. They stated that the road is in very damaged
condition.
(ii) The further allegation is that during the agitation, the petitioners
have prevented the vehicles' movement without hearing the request made by
the officials to disburse.
3. Based upon the complaint given by the second respondent herein, a
case in Crime No.69 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 143 and 341
IPC was registered. So, the first respondent took up the investigation. After
collecting materials, they recorded the statement of witnesses and filed a
final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti, which
was taken on file in S.T.C No.607 of 2017.
4. Challenging the final report, this petition is filed mainly on the
ground that none of the allegation mentioned in the First Information Report
will attract any of the ingredients of the offence under Section 341 and 143
IPC against the petitioners mainly on the ground of 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 subsequent cases.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7846 of 2021
5. Heard both sides.
6. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners along with the some other village people made a protest on
06.03.2017, at about 10.00 a.m, near Kayathar to Devarkulam main road at
Manamkathan bus stop. It is also not in dispute that these petitioners along
with the other village people, demanded the repair of main road called
'Manamkathan Village Road'.
7. So, it is seen that the petitioner and the other village people made
protest demanding the renovation or repair of the public road. So, it cannot
be construed or considered to be illegal or unlawful. So, the grievance of the
petitioners are genuine in nature. Moreover, every citizen got right to
protest against the demand and when their grievance is public in nature. So,
assembly at the place of occurrence cannot be construed as unlawful
assembly. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7846 of 2021
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
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7846 of 2021
8. So, when we will apply the ingredients of Section 141 IPC to the
facts of this case, this Court can easily come to the conclusion that 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
under Section 143 IPC are attracted.
9. 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.
10. The facts and circumstances of the case shows that the petitioners
were not intended to assemble in the place of occurrence, for the purpose of
obstructing the public transport or movement of the public through that
portion, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7846 of 2021
Court by observing that food, water and shelter are the basic necessities for
human life. Protesting and demanding for basic amenities through a
peaceful agitation cannot be construed as unlawful. Here, the demand made
by the petitioners is repairing the village road. As mentioned earlier, it may
not be construed or considered as illegal demand.
11. 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.II, Kovilpatti.
12. In view of the above, proceedings in S.T.C.No.607 of 2017 on the
filed of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kovilpatti, is quashed and the
Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.06.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
dss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7846 of 2021
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
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.II,
Kovilpatti.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kayathar Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7846 of 2021
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.4015 & 4017 of 2021
24.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
