Madras High Court
Mohamed Lathifulla vs State Rep. By Sub-Inspector Of ... on 22 September, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.16939 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.16939 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.No.9233 of 2021
1.Mohamed Lathifulla
2.Gold Rafi @ Syed Rafi Basha ... Petitioners
Versus
State Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police,
H-1 Washermanpet Police Station,
Chennai.
(In Crime No.216 of 2020). ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.216 of 2020
on the file of the respondent Police and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Rajamohamed
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.212 of 2020, on the file of the respondent Police.
2.The gist of the case is that on 13.03.2020 near Kannan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.16939 of 2021
Roundana, Sajha Munuswamy Street, Vijayaraghavalu Street Junction,
Washermenpet, the petitioners along with other 74 persons of Muslim
community held Chennai Shaheen Bagh Protest against Citizenship
Amendment Act enacted by the Government of India without any prior
permission from the concerned authority and also caused disturbance to
the public. The respondent warned the protesters that the prohibitory
order under Section 144 of Cr.P.C., is in force and also explained, the
danger of spreading of COVID-19 pandemic very much is likely and
asked them to disburse. Since they refused to do so, they were arrested
and a case against the petitioners/A3 & A6 and 41 others in Crime
No.212 of 2020 for offence under Sections 143, 145, 147, 290 of IPC and
Sections 41(A) & 71A(1) of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888 and
Sections 4B & 4A(1a) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of
Disfigurement) Act, 1959, came to be registered.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are social activist and have been raising voice for the public
cause and public welfare, whenever injustice and inaction of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.16939 of 2021
government machineries occurred. In order to draw the attention of the
Central and State Governments, the petitioners along with several others
had protested against Citizenship Amendment Act enacted by the
parliament. 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 restricted 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, which are essential
to democracy. The petitioners or any other members had never involved
in any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioner 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 investigation against the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.16939 of 2021
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 Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent Police submitted that in this case on 13.03.2021, the
petitioners and 41 persons assembled at Kannan Roundana, Sajha
Munuswamy Street, Vijayaraghavalu Street Junction, Washermenpet and
participated in a Dharna against the Citizenship Amendment Act enacted
by the Government of India without prior permission, held protest,
caused nuisance to the public and violated the prohibitory orders passed
by the police officers. At that time, the spread of COVID-19 pandemic
was furious. Without following the protocols, the petitioners and others
assembled and held protest, disturbed the traffic and public movement.
He further submitted that the respondent Police warned the petitioners as
well as the other protesters to disperse citing the prohibitory order is in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.16939 of 2021
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 petitioners 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. In this case, no public lodged any
complaint and no public got affected, due to the protest held by the
petitioners and others. Hence, this Court finds that the petitioners and
others have only raised slogans and shown protest against Citizenship
Amendment Act enacted by the Government of India. The petitioners
were fighting for the right of religious minorities.
7.It is seen that the petitioners herein to safeguard the guaranteed
fundamental rights provided under the Constitution of India, held protest.
From plain reading of the allegations in the FIR, the allegations are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.16939 of 2021
general in nature and no specific allegations are made against the
petitioners to attract the said provisions. Raising slogans and showing
protest itself would not amount to commission of offence. Showing
Protest is the Hallmark of Democracy, which is a fundamental right
guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
8.The petitioners and others raised slogans against the Government
for enacting the Citizenship Amendment Act. 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
the right to protest is to be safeguarded not to be termed as criminal
offence. 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 petitioners. Further, in consequence to the
protest, the prosecution failed to show whether any trouble occurred.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.16939 of 2021
The respondent Police failed to follow the guidelines issued by this Court
in Jeevanandham (Cited Supra). In several cases, this Court quashed
the investigation against the accused/protesters on similar ground.
9.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
FIR in Crime No.216 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police is
hereby quashed as against the petitioners. Consequently, the connected
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
22.09.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vv2
To
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police,
H-1 Washermanpet Police Station,
Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.16939 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
CRL.O.P.No.16939 of 2021
22.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
