Madras High Court
Ramalingam vs The State By on 8 September, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.15610 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.15610 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.8502 & 8503 of 2021
1.Ramalingam
2.Ghouse
3.Sundar
4.Karunanidhi
5.Ponnurangam ... Petitioners
Versus
The State by:-
The Inspector of Police,
K-8 Arumbakkam Police Station,
Chennai 600 106. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.9114 of 2017 on
the file of learned V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai
and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.M.Muralidharan for
Mr.S.Ravikumar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.15610 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioners, who are facing trial before the learned V
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.9114 of 2017, for
offence under Sections 143, 341 and 188 IPC, have filed the above
Quash Petition.
2.On information, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime
No.548 of 2017 on 13.03.2017 against the petitioners. On completion of
investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against them, listing five
witnesses as LW1 to LW5 and documents.
3.The gist of the case is that on 13.03.2017, at about 10.15 a.m.,
the respondent Police was on duty, at that time, near MMDA Colony E-
Block before the Fair Price Shop, the 1st petitioner headed a group of 26
males and 8 females, unlawfully assembled without any permission from
the authorities concerned and raised slogans against the Government for
not providing ration articles. When the respondent Police intervened and
insisted them to disburse, the petitioners/protesters and others failed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.15610 of 2021
do so. Hence, a complaint was lodged and on completion of
investigation charges sheet came to be filed before the learned V
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the same was taken on
file as C.C.No.9114 of 2017.
4.The contention of the petitioners is that in this case, LW1 to LW5
are all public servants and no private person was examined and cited as
witness. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners assembled
before the Fair Price Shop which is a public place and made protest for
not providing ration articles. 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. In this case, the FIR in Crime
No.548 of 2017 was registered for offence under Section 188 IPC. As
per Section 188 IPC, only the public servant is authorized to lodge a
complaint and Section 195 Cr.P.C is clear embargo as to how a complaint
to be registered and investigated by the Police for offence under Section
188 IPC. In this case, there is no complaint from the public servant.
Hence, the registration of the FIR its void ab initio and continuing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.15610 of 2021
investigation for other offences is also not permitted.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court
in catena of judgments have clearly held that the police personnel are not
empowered to register an FIR under Section 188 IPC. There is nothing
to show that on the date of occurrence, there was any prohibitory order in
force and whether that order was communicated in the prescribed manner
is also not known. The learned counsel further submitted that this Court
in the cases of “Madhan Mohan Versus The State and another in
Crl.O.P.Nos.23129 & 23127 of 2019” on the similar grounds, quashed
the proceedings against the accused. Further, in the case of
“Jeevanandham and others Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police and
another reported in (2018) 2 LW Crl. 606”, had given an authoritative
pronouncement regarding the cases to be registered and investigated
under Section 188 IPC and also issued certain guidelines, which is
violated in this case
6.The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.15610 of 2021
petitioners raised slogans and held demonstration against the
Government for the ineffectiveness in distribution of ration articles,
which cannot be construed as unlawful act. Right to Protest is the
Hallmark of Democracy, the petitioners only expressed their displeasure
which is their fundamental right. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the
proceedings against the petitioners.
7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent Police submitted that in this case, a complaint was lodged by
the respondent Police. When he was on patrol duty near Fair Price Shop,
found the petitioners and others, assembled and raising slogans against
the Government and also caused disturbance to the public. Timely
intervention of the respondent, further law and problem were averted.
The petitioners without getting permission from the authorities
concerned have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly restrained
the others and caused public disturbance. On completion of
investigation, charge sheet has been filed in this case.
8.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.15610 of 2021
this Court finds that the petitioners have only raised their objection with
regard to the shortage and non supply of ration articles to the general
public. The purpose for having a ration shop is to make available the
essential items for the needy persons, at affordable price. Raising
slogans against the Government itself would not amount to any
commission of offence, which is a fundamental right under Constitution
of India.
9.From the statement of the witnesses, it is seen that LW1 to LW5
present in the scene of occurrence and according to them, the petitioners
raised slogans against the Government with regard to shortage of non
supply of ration articles, they did nothing more. Admittedly in this case,
the occurrence had taken place in a public place and view, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.15610 of 2021
IPC and th same is barred under Section 195 Cr.P.C. There is no material
to show that there was any promulgation of any prohibitory order which
was communicated to the public and there was any disobedience by the
petitioners. Further, in consequence to the protest, the prosecution failed
to show whether any trouble injuries occurred. Thus, the respondent
Police did not follow the guidelines issued by this Court in
Jeevanandham (Cited Supra). In several cases, this Court quashes the
proceedings against the accused/protesters on the similar ground.
10.In the result, the proceedings in C.C.No.9114 of 2017, on the
file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai is hereby
quashed against the petitioners. This Criminal Original Petition is
allowed accordingly. Consequently, the connected Criminal
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
08.09.2021
vv2
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.15610 of 2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
K-8 Arumbakkam Police Station,
Chennai 600 106.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.15610 of 2021
08.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
