Madras High Court
Ramalingam vs The State By on 8 September, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.15682 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.15682 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.8544 & 8546 of 2021
1.Ramalingam
2.Shahul Hameed
3.Arch Arumugham
4.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.9351 of 2017 on
the file of learned V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai
and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.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.15682 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioners, who are facing trial before the learned V
Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.9351 of 2017, for
offence under Sections 143 and 188 IPC, have filed the above Quash
Petition.
2.On information, the respondent Police registered a case in Crime
No.998 of 2017 on 14.06.2017 against 68 male and 13 female persons.
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 14.06.2017, at about 01.00 p.m.,
the respondent Police/LW5 along with the Police party were on duty, at
that time, received an information that in MMDA Colony Main Road, the
1st petitioner being a political functionary of a political party headed a
group of 68 males and 13 females totally 81 persons unlawfully
assembled without any permission from the authorities concerned and
raised slogans against the Government for arresting the political leader.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.15682 of 2021
When the respondent Police intervened and insisted them to disburse, the
petitioners and other protesters failed to 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.9351 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 during investigation. The case of the prosecution is that the
petitioners assembled in MMDA Colony Main Road which is a public
place and made protest for arresting their political leader. It is highly
improbable that no public witness was present in the place of occurrence
and no reason has been given for non examination of public witnesses.
In this case, the FIR in Crime No.998 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.15682 of 2021
complaint from the public servant. Hence, the registration of the FIR its
void ab initio and continuing the 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. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the proceedings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.15682 of 2021
against the petitioners.
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondents submitted that in this case, a complaint was lodged by the
respondent Police/the Inspector of Police, K-8 Arumbakkam Police
Station, Chennai/LW5. When he was on duty, he got an information that
the petitioners and other protectors, had assembled and raised slogans for
arresting their political leader 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.
7.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials
this Court finds that the petitioners have only raised their objection for
arresting their political leader. The final report does not speak about any
complaint from anybody from general public regarding any hindrance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.15682 of 2021
caused to traffic in that locality. Raising slogans against the Government
itself would not amount to any commission of offence, which is a
fundamental right under Constitution of India.
8.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 arrest of their
political leader, they did not do anything more. Admittedly in this case,
the occurrence had taken place in the 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
IPC and the 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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.15682 of 2021
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.
9.In the result, the proceedings in C.C.No.9351 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
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vv2
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
K-8 Arumbakkam Police Station,
Chennai 600 106.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.O.P.No.15682 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.15682 of 2021
08.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
