Madras High Court
Mujuburrahman @ Mujupur Rahiman vs State Rep. Sub-Inspector Of ... on 4 October, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.17311 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.17311 of 2021
&
CRL.M.P.No.9498 of 2021
1.Mujuburrahman @ Mujupur Rahiman
2.Abdul Ravuth @ Abdul Rauf ... Petitioners
Versus
State Rep. Sub-Inspector of Police,
Mangalampet Police Station,
Virudhachalm, Cuddalore District.
(In Crime No.222 of 2021) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.222 of
2021 on the file of the Respondent Police and Quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Rajamohamed
For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodharan,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.17311 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash
proceedings in Crime No.222 of 2021 on the file of the respondent
police.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.06.2021, while the
respondent was on routine patrol, the petitioners along with others
assembled in front of the house of the first petitioner, which situates at
Mangalampet, and participated in a Dharna against the CAA enacted by
the parliament, without any prior permission from the concerned
authority. Further, it is stated that the defacto complainant asked the
petitioner and others to disperse from the said occurrence place and also
explained, the danger of spreading of COVID-19 pandemic very much is
likely and asked them to disburse. Since they failed to obey the order,
the respondent arrested the petitioners and others and registered a case in
Crime No.222 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
188 of IPC, r/w. 51(b) Disaster Management Act 2005, & 3 of Epidemic
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.17311 of 2021
Diseases Act 1987.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that
the petitioners are a social activist and had been raising voice for the
public cause and public welfare, whenever injustice and inaction of the
Government machineries. In order to draw the attention of the Central
and State Governments, the petitioners along with others several
members had protested against CAA enacted by the Parliament. The
learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has held that the right to freely assemble and also right to freely
express once view or constitutionally protected rights under Part III and
their enjoyment can be only in proportional manner through a fair and
non-arbitrary procedure provided in Article 19 of Constitution of India.
He further submitted that it is the duty of the Government to protect the
rights of freedom of speech and assemble that is so essential to a
democracy. According to Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., no Court can take
cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of IPC, unless the public
servant has written order from the authority. Further he submitted that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.17311 of 2021
petitioners or any other members had never involved in any unlawful
assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioners or others restrained
anybody. The petitioners and the other protesters were wearing face
mask and maintained social distance as per the Standard Operating
Procedure which can never be termed as unlawful assembly. Since,
there is no offence made out in the charge sheet, having no other option
except to file this quash petition. Therefore, he sought for quashing the
proceeding.
4. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of
Jeevanandham and others Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police and
another reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl 606.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submits that
in this case on 19.06.2021 the petitioners and others 4 assembled at
Mangalampetat in front the house of the first petitioner and participated
in a Dharna against the enactment of CAA by the Parliament, without any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.17311 of 2021
prior permission, held protest, caused nuisance to the public and
disobeyed the prohibitory orders passed by the police officers. The
spread of COVID-19 pandemic was in danger. Without following the
protocols, the petitioner and others assembled and made protest and also
disturbed the traffic and public movement. He further submitted that the
defacto complainant was on patrol duty along with other Police and
warned the petitioner as well as the other protesters to disperse citing the
prohibitory order is in force. During the COVID-19 pandemic period,
the act of the protesters would amount to spread of disease and
disturbance to the life of the general public. Despite warning, the
petitioner and others refused to disperse, on the other hand, they raised
slogans and caused disturbance to the public.
6.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the
materials, it is admitted fact that the petitioners and others raised protest
which is their fundamental right, no public lodged complaint and no
public got affected, due to the protest conducted by the petitioner and
others. Hence, this Court finds that the petitioners and others have only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.17311 of 2021
raised slogans and shown protest against Kalyanaraman, according to the
petitioners, they made defamation statement against CAA enacted by the
parliament. Raising slogans against the Government would not amount
to commission of offence, by dissenting and showing Protest is the
Hallmark of Democracy, which is a fundamental right under Constitution
of India.
7 . Admittedly in these cases, the occurrences took place in a
public place, in public view, surprisingly 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
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 prohibitory orders
which was communicated to the public and there was any disobedience
by the petitioner. Further, in consequence to the protest, the prosecution
failed to show whether any trouble occurred. The respondent Police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.17311 of 2021
failed to follow the guidelines issued by this Court in Jeevanandham
(Cited Supra). In several cases, this Court quashed the proceedings
against the accused/protesters on similar ground.
8.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in Crime No.222 of 2021 on the file of the respondent
police a is hereby quashed as against the petitioners and others similarly
placed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
04.10.2021
Index: Yes/No
mrp
To
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Mangalampet Police Station,
Virudhachalm, Cuddalore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.17311 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
mrp
CRL.O.P.No.17311 of 2021
04.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
