Madras High Court
Dayanidhi Maran vs The State on 8 October, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.5165 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.5165 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.3310 & 3312 of 2021
Dayanidhi Maran ... Petitioner
Versus
The State,
By Inspector of Police,
G7, Chetpet Police Station,
Law & Order,
Chetpet, Chennai-31. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the proceedings
in C.C.No.91/2019 on the file of the Addl. Special Court for trying
offences of elected MP & MLC., Chennai and quash the same and allow
this Criminal Original Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sneha
For Respondent : Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah,
State Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.91 of 2019, on the file of the Additional Special
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.5165 of 2021
Court for trying offences of elected MP & MLA., Chennai.
2.The gist of the case is that on 29.01.2018, at about 10.15 a.m.,
the respondent Police along with other Police personnels were on patrol
duty, at that time, 36 women and 142 men headed by the petitioner, Ex-
Minister belonging to DMK party held a protest for increase of bus ticket
fare against the Government of Tamil Nadu without any prior permission
from the concerned authority and caused disturbance to the public and
movement of vehicles. The respondent Police warned the protesters and
asked them to disperse. Since they refused to do so, they were arrested
and a case against the petitioner/A1 and 19 others in Crime No.45 of
2018 for offence under Sections 143 and 188 IPC was registered. On
completion of investigation, charge sheet filed against the accused before
the learned Additional Special Court for trying offences of elected MP &
MLA., Chennai for offence under Sections 143, 149 r/w 41(6) of the
Tamil Nadu City Police Act and Section 7(i) of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, and was taken on file as C.C.No.91 of 2019, listing 10
witnesses as LW1 to LW10.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.5165 of 2021
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is a political and social activist raising voice for the public
causes and public welfare. Whenever injustice and inaction of the
government machineries are found, the petitioner would hold protest
against the Government. In order to draw the attention of the State
Government, the petitioner along with several members had protested
against the Tamil Nadu Government for increasing the bus ticket fare.
The learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that the right to freely assemble and 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 right
of freedom of speech and assemble that is 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. The petitioner or any others had never
involved in any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.5165 of 2021
petitioner or others restrained general public and caused disturbance to
the traffic.
4.He further submitted that it is highly improbable that no public
witness was present in the place of occurrence and no reason given for
non examination of public witnesses. 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 investigation against the
petitioner.
5.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.”
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent Police submitted that in this case on 29.01.2018, the
petitioner and other protesters assembled at Chetpet signal held protest
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.5165 of 2021
against the Tamil Nadu Government for increasing the bus ticket fare
without any prior permission and caused nuisance to the public and
disturbance to the movement of vehicles. He further submitted that the
respondent Police along with other Police warned the petitioner as well
as the other protesters to disperse. Despite warning, the petitioner and
others refused to disperse, on the other hand, they raised slogans and
caused disturbance to the public.
7.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the
materials, it is admitted fact that the petitioner and others raised protest
which is their fundamental right. In this case, no public lodged any
complaint and no public got affected, due to the protest conducted by the
petitioner and others. Hence, this Court finds that the petitioner and
others have only raised slogans and shown protest against the Tamil
Nadu Government for increasing the bus ticket fare.
8.It is seen that the petitioner herein held protest to safeguard the
guaranteed fundamental rights in the Constitution. From plain reading of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.5165 of 2021
the allegations in the charge sheet, it is seen that the allegations are
general in nature and no specific overtact made against the petitioner to
attract the said provisions. Raising slogans and showing protest itself
would not amount to commission of offence. Showing Protest and
dissent is the Hallmark of Democracy, which is a fundamental right
guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
9.The petitioner and others raised slogans against the Tamil Nadu
Government for increasing the bus ticket fare. Admittedly in this case,
the occurrence 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. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.5165 of 2021
disobedience by the petitioner. Further, in consequence to the protest, the
prosecution failed to show whether any trouble occurred. The
respondent Police failed to follow the guidelines issued by this Court in
Jeevanandham (Cited Supra). In several this type of cases, this Court
quashed the proceedings against the accused/protesters on similar
ground.
10.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in C.C.No.91 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Special
Court for trying offences of elected MP & MLA., Chennai is hereby
quashed as against the petitioner. Consequently, the connected Criminal
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
08.10.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vv2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.5165 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
To
1.The Additional Special Court for trying offences of elected
MP & MLA.,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
G7, Chetpet Police Station,
Law & Order,
Chetpet, Chennai-31.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.5165 of 2021
08.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
