Madras High Court
Seeman vs State By on 23 September, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.23044 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No. 23044 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.Nos. 14759 & 14760 of 2022
1. Seeman
2. Anbu Thennarasu
3. Suthakar
4. Kajendran
5. Jaiveeran
6. Purushothaman
7. Rajesh Kumar
8. Jagajeevanram
9. Kannan
10. Mani
11. Vignesh
12. Chinnan
13. Anandan .... Petitioners
Vs
1. State by
Inspector of Police,
T4 Maduravoyal Police Station,
Chennai.
Crime No.1304 of 2020
2. N.Ravindran .... Respondents
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23044 of 2022
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,
to call for the entire proceedings pending on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.II at Poonamallee in C.C.No.16 of 2022 pending disposal
of this petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Xavier Felix
For R1 : Mr.S.Santhosh
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the
entire proceedings pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II at
Poonamallee in C.C.No.16 of 2022 pending disposal of this petition.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.08.2020 at about
11.30 p.m., the petitioners had assembled in front of the 1st petitioner's
then residence at No.26, Ashtalakshmi Nagar, raised slogans condemning
against the implementation of National Education Police 2020 by the
Union Government, without getting prior permission from the concerned
authority. On the basis of the above said allegation, the respondent police
registered the complaint and filed a charge sheet against the petitioners
for the offences under Sections 143, 188 and 117 of IPC in C.C.No.16 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23044 of 2022
2022, on the file the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is a social activist and has been raising voice for the
public cause and public welfare, whenever injustice and inaction of the
government machineries. In order to draw the attention of the Central and
State Governments, the petitioners raised slogans condemning against the
implementation of National Education Police 2020 by the Union
Government. The learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has 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. According to Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C.,
no Court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of IPC,
unless the public servant has written order from the authority. Further he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23044 of 2022
submitted that the petitioner or any other members had never involved in
any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioner or
others restrained anybody. However, the officials of the respondent
police had beaten the petitioner and others. When there was lot of
members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered
this case, under Section 143, 188 and 117 of IPC as against the petitioner
and others. Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal
Side) submitted that the petitioners raised slogans condemning against
the implementation of National Education Police 2020 by the Union
Government and there are specific allegations as against the petitioners
to proceed with the trial. Further, he would submit that Section 188 of
IPC is a cognizable offence and therefore it is the duty of the police to
register a case. Though there is a bar under Section 195(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. to
take cognizance for the offence under Section 188 of IPC, it does not
mean that the police cannot register FIR and investigate the case. More
over, the petitioners are habitual offender by committing this kind of
crimes. Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23044 of 2022
for dismissal of the same.
5. Heard Mr.S.Xavier Felix, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr.S.Santhosh, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
appearing for the first respondent.
6. On perusal of the charge, it is seen that the petitioners raised
slogans condemning against the implementation of National Education
Police 2020 by the Union Government, without getting prior permission
from the concerned authority. Therefore the respondent police levelled
the charges under Sections 143, 188 and 117 of I.P.C. as against the
petitioners. Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the
occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charges against
the petitioner. It is also seen from the charge itself that the charges are
very simple in nature and trivial. Section 188 reads as follows:
“188. Disobedience to order duly
promulgated by public servant — Whoever,
knowing that, by an order promulgated by a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23044 of 2022
public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate
such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain
act, or to take certain order with certain property
in his possession or under his management,
disobeys such direction, shall, if such
disobedience causes to tender to cause
obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of
obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person
lawfully employed, be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
month or with fine which may extend to two
hundred rupees, or with both; and if such
disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to
human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to
cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine
which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with
both.
7. The only question for consideration is that whether the
registration of case under Sections 143, 188 and 117 of IPC, registered
by the respondent is permissible under law or not? In this regard it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23044 of 2022
relevant to extract Section 195(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 :-
“195.Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority
of public servants, for offences against public
justice and for offences relating to documents given
in evidence. (1) No Courts hall take cognizance-
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under
sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive)of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii)of any abetment of, attempt to commit,
such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit,
such offence, except on the complaint in writing of
the public servant concerned or of some other
public servant to whom he is administratively
subordinate;...”
Therefore, it is very clear that for taking cognizance of the offences
under Section 188 of IPC, the public servant should lodge a complaint in
writing and other than that no Court has power to take cognizance.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23044 of 2022
judgement in Mahaboob Basha Vs. Sambanda Reddiar and others
reported in 1994(1) Crimes, Page 477. He also relied upon a judgment in
a batch of quash petitions, reported in 2018-2-L.W. (Crl.) 606 in
Crl.O.P. (MD)No. 1356 of 2018, dated 20.09.2018 in the case of
Jeevanandham and others Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Karur District, and this Court held in Paragraph-25, as follows :-
"25.In view of the discussions, the following
guidelines are issued insofar as an offence under
Section 188 of IPC, is concerned:
a) A Police Officer cannot register an FIR for
any of the offences falling under Section 172 to
188 of IPC.
b) A Police Officer by virtue of the powers
conferred under Section 41 of Cr.P.C will have the
authority to take action under Section 41 of
Cr.P.C., when a cognizable offence under Section
188 IPC is committed in his presence or where
such action is required, to prevent such person
from committing an offence under Section 188 of
IPC.
c) The role of the Police Officer will be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23044 of 2022
confined only to the preventive action as
stipulated under Section 41 of Cr.P.C and
immediately thereafter, he has to inform about the
same to the public servant concerned/authorised,
to enable such public servant to give a complaint
in writing before the jurisdictional Magistrate,
who shall take cognizance of such complaint on
being prima facie satisfied with the requirements
of Section 188 of IPC.
d) In order to attract the provisions of Section
188 of IPC, the written complaint of the public
servant concerned should reflect the following
ingredients namely;
i) that there must be an order promulgated
by the public servant;
ii) that such public servant is lawfully
empowered to promulgate it;
iii) that the person with knowledge of such
order and being directed by such order to abstain
from doing certain act or to take certain order
with certain property in his possession and under
his management, has disobeyed;
and
iv)that such disobedience causes or tends to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23044 of 2022
cause;
(a) obstruction,annoyance or risk of it to
any person lawfully employed; or
(b) danger to human life, health or safety;
or (c) a riot or affray.
e) The promulgation issued under Section
30(2) of the Police Act, 1861, must satisfy the test
of reasonableness and can only be in the nature of
a regulatory power and not a blanket power to
trifle any democratic dissent of the citizens by the
Police.
f) The promulgation through which, the order
is made known must be by something done openly
and in public and private information will not be a
promulgation. The order must be notified or
published by beat of drum or in a Gazette or
published in a newspaper with a wide circulation.
g) No Judicial Magistrate should take
cognizance of a Final Report when it reflects an
offence under Section 172 to 188 of IPC. An FIR
or a Final Report will not become void ab initio
insofar as offences other than Section 172 to 188
of IPC and a Final Report can be taken
cognizance by the Magistrate insofar as offences
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23044 of 2022
not covered under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.
h) The Director General of Police, Chennai
and Inspector General of the various Zones are
directed to immediately formulate a process by
specifically empowering public servants dealing
with for an offence under Section 188 of IPC to
ensure that there is no delay in filing a written
complaint by the public servants concerned under
Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.
9. In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been
registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143,
188 and 117 of IPC. He is not a competent person to register FIR for the
offences under Section 188 of IPC. As such, the First Information Report
or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188
of IPC. Further, the complaint does not even state as to how the protest
formed by the petitioners and others is an unlawful protest and does not
satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC. Therefore, the final report
cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.
10. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.16 of 2022 on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23044 of 2022
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, is hereby
quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
23.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Lpp
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Poonamallee, Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
T4 Maduravoyal Police Station,
Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.23044 of 2022
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Lpp
Crl.O.P.No. 23044 of 2022
and Crl.M.P.Nos. 14759 & 14760 of 2022
23.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
