Madras High Court
Haroon Rasith vs State Rep By Its on 3 January, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.25399 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.25399 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.14072 & 14073 of 2021
1.Haroon Rasith
2.Thaimiya
3.Abdullah
4.Jahir Hussain
5.Thavud Jaffar @ Javid ... Petitioners
Versus
State Rep by its,
The Inspector of Police,
F-2, Egmore Police Station,
Chennai.
(Cr.No.166 of 2018). ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.6040 of 2018
pending on the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai
and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.I.Abdul Basith
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.25399 of 2021
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.6040 of 2018, pending on the file of the XIV
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai (Trial Court).
2.The gist of the case is that on 03.04.2018, at about 03.30 p.m.,
when the respondent Police along with his team were on patrol duty, near
Egmore Railway Station, 85 persons belonging to Manithaneya
Jananayaga Party under the leadership of 1st petitioner had assembled and
raised slogans against the Central and State Government of Tamil Nadu
for Non forming of Kaveri Management Board, 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.166 of 2018 was
registered, for offence under Sections 143, 188, 353 and Section 41 of
the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888. After completion of investigation,
charge sheet was filed before the trial Court and the same was taken on
file as C.C.No.6040 of 2018, for offence under Sections 143, 353,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.25399 of 2021
Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888 and Section 7(1)(a)
of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2005, listing 7 witnesses as LW1
to LW7, as against which, the present Criminal Original Petition.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not the
case that the petitioners and other accused blocked the free movement of
traffic and caused any inconvenience to the public. He further submitted
that out of seven witnesses, LW1 to LW4 & LW7 are police personnels
attached to the respondent Police Station. LW5 and LW6, who are
witnesses to the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch, are obliging
witnesses to the Police. 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 petitioners. The petitioners are
social activist and, have been raising voice for the public cause and
public welfare, whenever injustice and inaction of the government
machineries occurred. 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 petitioners or any other
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.25399 of 2021
members had never involved in any unlawful assembly and there is no
evidence that the petitioners restrained anybody.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners further 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 Right to Dissent is the Hallmark of
Democracy, the petitioners only expressed their displeasure which is their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.25399 of 2021
fundamental right. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the proceedings
against the petitioners.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent Police submitted that when the respondent Police along with
other Police were on patrol duty, near Egmore Railway Station, 85
persons belonging to Manithaneya Jananayaga Party under the leadership
of 1st petitioner had assembled and raising slogans against the Central
and State Government of Tamil Nadu for Non forming of Kaveri
Management Board, 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, the respondent Police has registered a case
against the petitioners and other accused and examined the witnesses and
after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet before the trial
Court. The trial Court, on perusal of the charge sheet, finding prima
facie material against the accused, had taken the case on file and issued
summons to the petitioners. Therefore, the points raised by the
petitioners are to be decided only during trial and not in this petition and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.25399 of 2021
he prayed for dismissal of this quash petition.
6.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
7.In this case, LW1 to LW4 & LW7 all are Police personnels and
no independent person or public has been examined as witness. LW5
and LW6 are obliging witnesses to the Police. All the statement of
witnesses are parrot like version. 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
petitioners 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.
8.Admittedly in this case, the occurrence had taken place in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.25399 of 2021
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.
9.In view of the above, the proceedings in C.C.No.6040 of 2018,
on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai,
is hereby quashed against the petitioners and also against other accused,
who are similarly placed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is
allowed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
03.01.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vv2
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.25399 of 2021
vv2
To
1.The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Egmore, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
F-2, Egmore Police Station,
Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.25399 of 2021
03.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
