Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 5749 Mad
Judgement Date : 8 June, 2023
Crl.O.P.No.12286 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
Crl.O.P.No.12286 of 2023
and
Crl.M.P.No.7495 of 2023
Faisal @ Faisal Ahamed ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
Mangalam Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
(Crime No.313 of 2022)
2.T.Pannari ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call
for the records of the Crime No.313 of 2022 on the file of the 1 st respondent
police pending investigation and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Thiyagarajan.B
For R-1 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 10
Crl.O.P.No.12286 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records of the
Crime No.313 of 2022 on the file of the 1st respondent police pending
investigation and quash the same.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that First Information
Report is registered for the offences under Sections 143 and 341 IPC in Crime
No.313 of 2022, alleging that the accused with other persons had unlawfully
assembled and raised slogans against the Government at about 11.30 am on
22.09.2022 at Mangalam Junction. He further submitted that accused have not
committed any offence and registration of First Information Report by the
respondent police is illegal.
3. He further submitted that this court in Crl.O.P.No.17903 of 2021 and
Crl.O.P.No.11291 of 2022 quashed the cases registered under Section 143 and
341 of IPC and 143, 188 and 341 of IPC respectively on the ground that the
petitioners therein were engaged in protest, which is their fundamental right. No
public lodged complaint and no public got affected, due to the protest conducted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.12286 of 2023
by the petitioners. Petitioners had only raised slogans against the Government
and the same would not amount to commission of offence and it is a
fundamental right under the constitution of India.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a Judgment 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.12286 of 2023
188 of IPC.
c) The role of the Police Officer will be 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.12286 of 2023
iv)that such disobedience causes or tends to 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.12286 of 2023
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.
5. In response the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted
that the petitioners had unlawfully assembled and raised slogans against the
Government. Therefore, First Information Report in Crime No.313 of 2022 was
registered. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.
6. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
7. This Court in Crl.O.P.No.23022 of 2022 while dealing with quashing
of case registered under Section 143 & 341 IPC observed that if the unlawful
assembly confirms to the definition of unlawful assembly as defined under
Section 141 IPC, the member of unlawful assembly can be prosecuted under
Section 143 IPC. It is also relevant to note the definition of Unlawful Assembly:
“Unlawful Assembly-
An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is -
(i) to overawe by criminal force, or show of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.12286 of 2023
criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
(ii) to resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
(iii) to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
(iv) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
(v) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.-
8. Section 143 of IPC reads as follows:
“143. Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six month, or with fine, or with both.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.12286 of 2023
In the case before hand, there is no specific allegations against the
petitioners or any of the member of the unlawful assembly that they used
criminal force with a common object of overawe the Central or State
Government, resisted the execution of any law or of any process, committed any
mischief or criminal trespass, take possession of any property, deprive any
person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other
incorporeal right, compelled any person to do what he is not legally bound to do
or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. In the absence of specific
allegations in this regard, it is no doubt that the alleged assembly cannot be
considered as unlawful assembly and the members of alleged unlawful
assembly cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 143 IPC.
Similarly, there is no statement obtained from any member, individual or vehicle
driver as to whether they were prevented or criminally resisted from proceeding
further. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the ingredients for
prosecuting the petitioner under Section 143 and 341 IPC are not made out and
the continuation of trial would be a harassment to the petitioners.
9. Therefore, the proceedings pending on the file of the 1st respondent in
Crime No.313 of 2022 against the petitioners is quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.12286 of 2023
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently,
the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
08.06.2023
Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order gd
To
1.The Inspector of Police, Mangalam Police Station, Tiruppur District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.12286 of 2023
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.J.,
gd
Crl.O.P.No.12286 of 2023
08.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!