Madras High Court
William Carry @ William Geri vs State Rep. By on 3 January, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.25413 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.25413 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.No.14084 of 2021
William Carry @ William Geri ... Petitioner
Versus
State Rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
Udumalpet Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
(Crime No.1178 of 2020). ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in connection with the
impugned FIR in Crime No.1178 of 2020 on the file of the respondent
and quash the same in so far as the petitioner concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijaya Ragavan
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.1178 of 2020, on the file of the respondent Police.
Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.25413 of 2021
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 24.03.2020, at about 11.30
p.m., when the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent Police
Station along with other Police personnels were on patrol duty, the
petitioner along with 19 persons had assembled and raised slogans
against the Government to provide reservation in Medical Course and
private employment to OBC, SC/ST peoples, violating the prohibition
order issued under Section 144 Cr.P.C., without getting any prior
permission. When they were asked to disperse and not to create any law
and order problem, they failed to do so. Hence, they were arrested in the
spot by the respondent Police and a case in Crime No.1178 of 2020 was
registered, for offence under Sections 143 and 269 IPC, as against which,
the present Criminal Original Petition.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not the
case that the petitioner and other accused blocked the free movement of
traffic and caused any inconvenience to the public. It is highly
improbable that no public had come to lodge a complaint, which would
prove the fact that the respondent Police projected a false case against the
Page No.2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.25413 of 2021
petitioner. He further submitted that it is the duty of the Government to
protect the rights of freedom of speech and assemble, which are essential
to a democracy. The petitioner or any other members had never involved
in any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioner
restrained anybody. Showing protest is the hallmark of democracy and it
is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution of India. Article
19(a) confers Freedom of Speech; Article 19(1)(b) confers Right to
Assemble; 19(1)(d) permits peaceful march. The peaceful protest in non
violent manner would no way attract the violation of any directions and
rules.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
prohibitory order in force has not been properly promulgated and there
was no declaration of any such prohibitory order. The respondent Police
is duty bound to promulgate if such order was in force, but no steps have
been taken as per Section 129 of Cr.P.C., which is mandatory. He further
submitted that this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court time and
again held that the complainant himself cannot be an investigating
Page No.3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.25413 of 2021
officer, which would vitiate the entire investigation. The only exception
is that it is to be seen whether any prejudice caused to the accused by
such investigation. The petitioner 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.
5.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.”
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent Police submitted that when the Sub Inspector of Police,
attached to the respondent Police along with other Police personnels
were on patrol duty, the petitioner along with 19 persons had assembled
and raised slogans against the Government to provide reservation in
Medical Course and private employment to OBC, SC/ST peoples,
violating the prohibition order issued under Section 144 Cr.P.C., without
Page No.4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.25413 of 2021
getting any prior permission. When they were asked to disperse and not
to create any law and order problem, they failed to do so. Hence, they
were arrested in the spot by the respondent Police and a case in Crime
No.1178 of 2020 was registered, for offence under Sections 143 and 269
IPC. The points raised by the petitioners are to be decided only during
trial and not in this petition and he prayed for dismissal of this quash
petition.
7.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
8.Showing protest and raising slogans without any disturbance to
public and free movement of traffic, is permissible in law. Right to
Dissent is the Hallmark of Democracy, the petitioner and other accused
only expressed their displeasure which is their fundamental right. There
is no material to show promulgation of any prohibitory order which was
communicated to the public and there was any disturbance by the
petitioner.
Page No.5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.25413 of 2021
9.This Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the
complainant and the investigating officer should not be one and the same
person, unless in exceptional cases, where there is no prejudice caused to
the accused. In this case, the prejudice against the accused is very much
there, since the complainant is Police and no independent person lodged
any complaint. Further, there is nothing to show that there have been any
promulgation of prohibitory order and the protesters formed themselves
as an unlawful assembly.
10.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, in consequence to the protest, the prosecution failed to show
whether any trouble injuries occurred. Thus, the allegations made in the
charge sheet, even if taken at face value and accepted in entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the
petitioners.
Page No.6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.25413 of 2021
11.In view of the above, the FIR in Crime No.1178 of 2020, on the
file of the 1st respondent Police, is hereby quashed against the petitioner
and also against other accused, who are similarly placed. Accordingly,
this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
03.01.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vv2
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Udumalpet Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
Page No.7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.25413 of 2021
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
CRL.O.P.No.25413 of 2021
03.01.2022
Page No.8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
