Ariharan Kencian vs State Represented By Its
2022 Latest Caselaw 6820 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6820 Mad
Judgement Date : 1 April, 2022

Madras High Court

Ariharan Kencian vs State Represented By Its on 1 April, 2022

                                                                1

                                    BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                        DATED: 01.04.2022

                                                            CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                  Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6179 of 2022
                                                               and
                                                  Crl.M.P.(MD)No.4295 of 2022

                     Ariharan Kencian                                                  ...Petitioner


                                                                    Vs.

                     State Represented by its
                     The Inspector of Police
                     Koodankulam Police Station
                     Tirunelveli District – 627104
                     (Crime No.136 of 2012)                                           ...Respondent


                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
                     call for the entire records pertaining to FIR in Crime No.136 of 2012 on the
                     file of the respondent police and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is
                     concerned.
                                       For Petitioner      : M/s. Maurya L.P.

                                       For Respondent      : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
                                                             Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                            ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the entire

records pertaining to FIR in Crime No.136 of 2012 on the file of the

respondent police and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is

concerned.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 23.02.2022,at about 17.00

hrs., the petitioner and others infront of Koodangulam Nuclear Power Plant

blocked the road by placing stones on the road and conducted agitation

against the formation of power plant and caused hindrance to the public

Hence, the petitioner along with other accused persons were charged for the

offence punishable under sections 143,147,148,151,121(A),188,431 of IPC

and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act in Crime No.136 of 2012

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

the Coordinate Bench of this court in a batch of cases viz., Crl.OP(MD)Nos.

2064 of 2020 etc., dated 13.03.2020 has observed that on the strength of

mere omnibus statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, this petitioner

has also been roped in as an accused. The petitioner has not rushed to the

Court immediately. At the same time, continued pendency of the impugned

prosecution constitutes an abuse of legal process.

5. At the time of agitation, the petitioner was not at all involved in the

occurrence and without properly verifying the identify of the persons during

the course of investigation, how the police is able to figure out this petitioner https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

among 5000 nos of people is also unbelievable and no materials have been

collected during the course of investigation to identify each and every person

involved in the occurrence.

6.No doubt, in the final report, it has been stated that more than 5000

people involved in the occurrence including women and children, who

assembled in the seashore area for making protest. Their aim was not to

cause any damage to the public property or damage to anyone, much less

than the police officials. It appears that it was a peaceful demonstration at

one stage. Finding that at one stage it went to uncontrollable stage of

dispersing the mass, in that process, it appears that two vehicles belongs to

the Police Department have been damaged. No doubt that causing damage

to the public property is a serious offence, which has to be properly tried. But

at the time same time, the circumstance under which the above said

occurrence taken place is also kept in mind.

7.As mentioned earlier, it was a fear protest made by the villagers,

feeling that if any new power plant is established, their very existence will

become danger. No doubt, this was a false apprehension in the minds of the

villagers. That is why, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in

the case of G.Sundarrajan Vs. Union of India [(2013)6 SCC 640] has

elaborately discussed and requested the Government to educate the people

and take all necessary steps to remove the misapprehension in their minds. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8. The Petitioner's implication in the present matter is absolutely

frivolous and mere-omnibus statement may not constitute offences against

the Petitioner since criminal trial is contemplated only on the basis of

definitive allegation of commission of offence by every individual involved. As

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2012(13)SCC 614 has

categorically held that ''A Criminal trial cannot be allowed to assume the

character of fishing and roving enquiry. It would not be permissible in law to

permit a prosecution to linger, limp and continue on the basis of a mere hope

of expectation that in the trial some material may be found to implicate the

accused. Such a course of action is not contemplated in the system of criminal

jurisprudence that has been evolved by the Courts over the years. A criminal

trial, on the contrary, is contemplated only on definitive allegations, prima

facie, establishing the commission of an offence by the accused which fact

has to be proved by leading unimpeachable and acceptable evidence in the

course of the trial against the accused.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.Sundarrajan Vs.Union of India

reported in 2013(6)SCC wherein the whole incident as well as establishment

of Koodangulam Nuclear Power Plant Project has been discussed. It is a

classic case of recent times, which deal and discuss about the necessity of

establishing such power plants in the interest of the development of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

country and scientific explorations. A detailed study has been made in this

case and during the course of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court is of

the view that all the cases that have been registered against the protestors

touching the protest against the establishment of the power plant may by

dropped. Para No.244.14 of the judgments reads as under:

244.14 Endeavour should be made to withdraw all the

criminal cases filed against the agitators so that peace and normalcy

be restored at Kudankulam and nearby places and steps should be

taken to educate the people of the necessity of the plant which is in

the largest interest of the nation particularly the state of Tamil Nadu.

10. Further it is settled law that criminal trial cannot be allowed to

assume the character of fishing and roving enquiry on contrary criminal trial is

contemplated only on definite allegations, prima facie establishing the

commission of an offence by the accused which fact must be proved by

leading unimpeachable and acceptable evidence.

11. All the allegations are general in nature and it is only a general

allegation made against this petitioner. Since such like this nature,

continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner will amount to abuse of

process of court and law.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

12.In view of the above, this criminal original petition is allowed and

accordingly, the entire proceedings in FIR No.136 of 2012 on the file of