Madras High Court
Mohamed Lathifulla vs State Rep. By Sub-Inspector Of ... on 22 September, 2021
CRL.O.P.No.16803 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.16803 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.No.9182 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.212 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.212 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 11.03.2021 near Kannan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.16803 of 2021
Roundana, Sajha Munuswamy Street, Vijayaraghavalu Street Junction,
Washermenpet, the the petitioners along with other 41 persons belong to
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/A10 & A19 and 41 others in
Crime No.212 of 2020 for offence under Sections 143, 145, 147, 290 of
IPC and Sections 51(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.16803 of 2021
government machineries. In order to draw the attention of the Central
and State Governments, the petitioners along with several members 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 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. 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.16803 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 11.03.2021, 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 any prior permission, held protest,
caused nuisance to the public and disobeyed the prohibitory orders
passed by the police officers. At that time, the spread of COVID-19
pandemic was in danger. Without following the protocols, the petitioners
and others assembled and made protest and also disturbed the traffic and
public movement. He further submitted that the respondent Police along
with other Police warned the petitioners as well as the other protesters to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.16803 of 2021
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 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 a
complaint and no public got affected, due to the protest conducted 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.
7.It is seen that the petitioners herein had followed the rights
provided by the Constitution of India and held the protest under the guise
of Constitution. A mere reading of the allegations in the FIR, the
allegations are general in nature and no specific allegations are made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.16803 of 2021
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 protect 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.
The respondent Police failed to follow the guidelines issued by this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.16803 of 2021
in Jeevanandham (Cited Supra). In several this type of 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.212 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.16803 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
CRL.O.P.No.16803 of 2021
22.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
