Madras High Court
Arul vs The State Represented By on 27 June, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.30016 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.Nos.17630 of 2018 & 16290 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.O.P.No.30016 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.Nos.17630 of 2018 & 16290 of 2019
1.Arul
2.Soundararajan
3.Tamilmani
4.Mariappan ... Petitioners/Accused
Vs.
1.The State represented by
the Inspector of Police
Singarapettai Police Station,
Krishnagiri District,
(Crime No.240/2018). ...1st Respondent
2.V.Hemalatha,
The Block Development Officer,
(Village Panchayath),
Panchayath Union,
Uthangarai (Tk). ...2nd Respondent/
Defacto Complainant
PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in Crime No. 240 of 2018 on the file
of the first respondent police and to quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Murugendran
For R1 : Mr.C.E.Pratap
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.O.P.No.30016 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.Nos.17630 of 2018 & 16290 of 2019
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the Crime
No. 240 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police.
2.The petitioners herein are arrayed as A1 to A4 in Crime No.240
of 2018, on the file of the Singarapettai Police Station, Krishnagiri
District.
3.The case of the prosecution is that during the Grama Sabha
Meeting conducted on the independence day i.e, on 15.08.2018, the
accused threatened the Government Servant to pass a resolution against
the implementation of the eight way road [Greenway Corridor Project
(Chennai – Salem)], by insisting the people of the village to raise their
voice, should be the first resolution and thereafter, the other resolution
may be passed. In view of such stand taken by this petitioners/accused,
the second respondent/Block Development Officer [village panchayath]
gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Singarapettai Police Station,
Krishnagiri District, resulted in filing of FIR, which was registered after
six days of the incident.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.30016 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.Nos.17630 of 2018 & 16290 of 2019
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
complaint has been lodged on 17.08.2018 which is after three days of the
alleged incident, dated 15.08.2018 and the FIR was registered on
21.08.2018.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would contend that
the defacto complainant/informant is a Block Development Officer as
such she was prevented from passing resolutions in the Grama Sabha
Meeting and hence, the offence under section 353 of IPC is made out.
6.On a similar circumstances, similarly placed accused with
respect to agitation against the land acquisition for laying the eight way
road [Greenway Corridor Project (Chennai – Salem)], this Court by an
order dated 16.03.2020 made in Crl.O.P.No.26373 of 2018 has quashed
the FIR in Crime No. 278 of 2018, by observing as follows:
“8.After demand made by the petitioners, the de-facto
complainant visited the place of occurrence and there, the
petitioners and others demanded him to re-lay the roads.
Therefore, it would not amount to restraining the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.30016 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.Nos.17630 of 2018 & 16290 of 2019
respondent from doing is official duties. Admittedly, no one
sustained any injuries. Moreover, there was no assault or
criminal force against the second respondent by the
petitioners and others. Therefore, the offence under Section
353 of I.P.C, would not at all attracted as against the
petitioners, Even, on perusing the records, there was no
threats made to the de-facto complainant by the petitioners
at any point of time and as such, the offence under Section
506(i) of I.P.C., is also not attracted as against the
petitioners.”
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that they were
only voicing their democratic right for passing resolutions and they never
indulged in preventing the public servant from discharging her duty and
they have not committed any offence as stated by the prosecution.
8.After perusing the complaint and the order passed in the above
said Crl.O.P.No.26373 of 2018 and also the averments made in the
compliant, I find that the ratio laid down in the above judgment is
squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.30016 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.Nos.17630 of 2018 & 16290 of 2019
9.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the
FIR registered in Crime No.240 of 2018, on the file of the first
respondent police is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
27.06.2022
Internet : Yes
dua
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Singarapettai Police Station,
Krishnagiri District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.30016 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.Nos.17630 of 2018 & 16290 of 2019
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
dua
Crl.O.P.No.30016 of 2018
and Crl.M.Nos.17630 of 2018 & 16290 of 2019
27.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
