Madras High Court
L.C.Thirumalai vs The State Rep. By on 27 April, 2023
Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.2191, 2197, 4013 & 4014 of 2021
1.L.C.Thirumalai
2,K.Sekar
3.Kachapalayam
4.R.Ponmanikandan
5.M.Meena
6.K.Mahalakshmi
7.G.Deepa
8.N.Alamelu
9.K.Sumithra
10.N.Sivakami
11.M.Mariyammal
12.R.Padmavathy
13.S.Parasakthi
14.S.Kalaiselvi
15.G.Revathi
16.A.G.Maragathamani
17.K.Prabu
18.K.Venkataramanan
19.M.Chandrasekar
20.D.Deepan Varma
21.D.Giribabu
22.K.S.Suresh Kumaran
23.R.Baskaran
24.M.Sarathkumar
...Petitioners / Accused 1 to 3, 18 to 22 and 24 to 39
(in Crl.O.P.No.3681 of 2021)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021
1.T.Sivanesan
2.A.Saravanakumar
3.R.Gunaseelan
4.M.Elamvaluthi
5.V.Sivamurugan
6.P.Elangovan
7.M.Thangaraju
8.P.C.Sathyanarayanan
9.M.Thirumalai
10.L.B.Sujatha
11.H.Thilagam
12.B.Mahalakshmi
13.R.Kungumapriya
14.T.G.Sunitha
... Petitioners / Accused 4 to 8, 10 to 17 and 23
(in Crl.O.P.No.6099 of 2021)
-Vs-
1.The State rep. by:
The Inspector of Police,
G-3 Police Station,
Kilpauk,
Chennai – 10.
(Crime No.124 of 2019) ... 1st Respondent / Complainant
2.Interim Administrator,
Pachaiyappa's Trust,
No.113, Harington Road,
Chennai – 600 030.
(Now he removed by judgment in
O.S.A.No.60, 61, 62 of 2020 dated 23.12.2020
... 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant
(in both Crl.O.Ps)
Prayer: Criminal Original petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/8
Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in
C.C.No.1232 of 2020 on the file of the 1st respondent and to quash the
same.
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Murugendran
(in Crl.O.P.No.3681 of 2021)
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Vijayakumar
(in Crl.O.P.No.6099 of 2021)
For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
(in both Crl.O.Ps)
For R2 : Mr.C.S.S.Pillai
(in both Crl.O.Ps)
ORDER
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to quash
the proceedings in C.C.No.1232 of 2020 on the file of the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate – II, Egmore, Chennai, filed for the alleged
offence under Sections 143, 147, 448, 341, 342 r/w 149 IPC.
2. It is alleged in the final report that on 11.04.2019,
the petitioners, some of whom are professors and others staff members of
Pachaiyappa's College protested outside the college premises and formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly and prevented the other staff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021
members from entering the college premises. It is alleged that the 3rd
petitioner / A3 had unlawfully locked the grill gate of the premises. The
complaint was lodged by the Administrator of the Pachaiyappa's Trust,
appointed by this Court, who is a retired Judge of this Court. The learned
Judge had given the complaint stating that he apprehended that the
petitioners would prevent the holding of the College Committee Meeting
on 15.04.2019 and that the petitioners had indulged in all forms of
protest by shouting and abusing the other officials of the Trust in front of
the office. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners had protested in a peaceful manner. The protest is sought to
be projected as unlawful assembly. They are all employed in
Pachaiyappa's College, and therefore, the offence of trespass is not made
out. Hence, he prayed for the quashing of the final report.
4. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent vehemently opposed
the quashing of the impugned final report and submitted that there are
allegations in the impugned final report and supporting materials to
establish the offences. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the quash
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021
petition.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing of the
1st respondent reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the 2nd respondent.
6. This Court finds that the FIR, which culminated in the impugned
final report, was lodged seeking protection for conducting the meeting on
15.04.2019. Based on the complaint given by the learned Judge, police
protection was given and it is reported that the meeting was held on
15.04.2019. The allegations would suggest that the petitioners had
protested outside the college premises. An assembly of persons for the
purpose of protest cannot be termed as unlawful assembly.
Hence, the offences under Sections 143 and 147 IPC are not made out.
As regards wrongful restraint, the allegation is that they had prevented
the entry of other staff members to the college. This Court in
Jeevanandham and others vs. State reported in 2018 SCC online Mad
13698 : (2018) 2 LW (Cri) 606 had held that merely because some
hindrance is caused to the movement of certain persons for some time due
to a protest, the said act would not attract the offence of wrongful
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021
restraint. Hence, the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code
is not made out. Admittedly, the petitioners are all employed in
Pachayappa's College, and hence, their entry into the college cannot be
termed as Criminal trespass. The allegation against one of the staff
members is that he had closed the grill gate. Further, it is seen that on
15.04.2019, the meeting was conducted (for which protection was sought
for in the FIR) without any hindrance. Even assuming that the offences
are made out, the harm caused by the accused on account of their protest
on 11.04.2019 is slight and would be covered by Section 95 of IPC.
7. That apart, it is seen that the petitioners are either professors or
staff members of Pachaiyappa's College. All of them have today filed
Affidavits expressing their sincere apology for the occurrence said to
have taken place on 11.04.2019 and further undertaking that they would
not indulge in any activity prejudicial to the smooth functioning of the
Pachaiyappa's College Trust Office in future. Since the petitioners have
expressed regret for their action and filed Affidavits and also for the
reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the impugned final
report is liable to be quashed to secure the ends of Justice. However, it is
made clear that the petitioners shall not be subjected to any action,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021
departmental or otherwise for filing such Affidavits before this Court.
8. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned final
report in C.C.No.1232 of 2020 on the file of the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate – II, Egmore, Chennai. Accordingly, this Criminal Original
Petition is allowed. Connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
27.04.2023
smv
Internet: Yes
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
To,
1.The State rep. by:
The Inspector of Police,
G-3 Police Station,
Kilpauk,
Chennai – 10.
2.Interim Administrator,
Pachaiyappa's Trust,
No.113, Harington Road,
Chennai – 600 030.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
SUNDER MOHAN,J.
smv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021
Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.2191, 2197, 4013 & 4014 of 2021
27.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
