Madras High Court
Murugan vs The Inspector Of Police on 15 April, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2123 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :15.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
CRL. OP(MD). No.2123 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.1448 and 1449 of 2025
1. Murugan
2.Kumar
3. Umaiyarajan
4.Karthick
5.Arunkumar
6.Ananth
7.Manikandan
8. Thilagaraj
9. Nagaraj
10. Suresh
11. Bala Preveen
12.Prabhakar
13.Karuppasamy
14.Solairaj
15.Ravikumar ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
Theni Police Station
Theni District
2. Jeeva
Village Administrative Officer
Allinagaram Village
Theni ... Respondents
_____________
Page No. 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:00:11 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.2123 of 2025
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call
for the records relating to STC No. 232 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial
Magistate, Theni and quash the same as against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This petition has filed to quash the proceedings in STC No. 232 of
2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistate, Theni
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.09.2023 the petitioners
along with others without any permission formed unlawful assembly and
raised slogans by condemning derogatory comment made by the Tamil Nadu
Minister against Sanatana Dharma thereby committed the offence under
Sections 341 and 143 of IPC.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
based on the complaint given by the second respondent the first respondent
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:00:11 pm )
registered a case in Crime No. 446 of 2023 for the offences under Sections 143
and 341 of IPC. The petitioners raised slogans by condemning derogatory
comment made by the Tamil Nadu Minister against Sanatana Dharma. Infact all
the witnesses are police witnesses and there is no unlawful assembly and
therefore the accused persons cannot be prosecuted under Section 143 of IPC.
There is no evidence that the petitioners and others have wrongfully restrained
some body to attract the offence under Section 341 of IPC. The first respondent
without conducting proper investigation filed final report before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Theni and the learned Magistrate also without any prima
facie materials had taken cognizance and the same is pending in STC No. 232
of 2024 and therefore the pending proceedings is liable to be quashed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit
that the petitioners raised slogans by condemning derogatory comment made by
the Tamil Nadu Minister against Sanatana Dharma, therefore the second
respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners and others and the first
respondent registered a case. Thereafter the first respondent conducted
investigation and filed final report and the trial Court has also taken cognizance
and there are prima facie materials available as against this petitioners to
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:00:11 pm )
proceed with the case, therefore they have to face the trial, hence the petition is
liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. In this case the first respondent has registered a case against the
petitioners and others for the offences under Section 143 and 341 of IPC
alleging that petitioners along with others raised slogans by condemning
derogatory comment made by the Tamil Nadu Minister against Sanatana
Dharma. Therefore the second respondent lodged complaint and the first
respondent registered a case against these petitioners and other under Section
143 and 341 of IPC.
7. On careful perusal of the entire records, there are no materials to show
that the petitioners and other accused formed unlawful assembly. They only
conducted demonstration and no any unlawful assembly as defined under
Section 141 of IPC. There are no materials to constitute the offence under
Section 143 of IPC, as per the First Information Report and final report. Merely
because they assembled together and conducted dharna it will not amount to
unlawful assembly to attract the provision under Section 143 of IPC.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:00:11 pm )
8. So far as offence under Section 341 of IPC is concerned, there are no
materials that these petitioners along with other accused unlawfully restrained
anybody and there is no any complaint given by any one of the public and no
other materials to show that the accused person obstructed anybody in
proceeding in the public road, therefore the pending proceedings are liable to
be quashed.
9. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
relied on the following judgments:
a) Jeevanantham and others .vs. The Inspector of Police,Velayuthapuram
Police Station, Karur District and another reported in 2018-22 L.W.(Crl.)606
b) K.Sathaiya and others .vs. The Inspector of Police, Arimalam Police
Station, Pudukottai District in Crl.O.P(MD) No.75 of 2025.
10. On careful perusal of the above said judgments it is clear that when
the assembly of persons were expressing dissatisfaction on the governance and
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:00:11 pm )
claiming for minimum rights that are guaranteed to an ordinary citizen and if
such an assembly of persons are to be trifled by registering an FIR under
Section 143 of IPC and now equivalent to Section 189(2) of BNS and filing a
Final Report for the very same offence, no democratic dissent can ever be
shown by the citizens and such prohibition will amount to violation of
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
11. In the case on hand also the petitioners raised slogans by condemning
derogatory comment made by the Tamil Nadu Minister against Sanatana
Dharma in a peaceful manner and no any complaint lodged by any public and
no any public movement was curtailed. To attract the offence under Section
143 and 341 of IPC there is no any material that these petitioners along with
other accused formed unlawful assembly with a common intention to resist the
execution of any law or of any legal progress. Further the said dharna did not
cause any public nuisance to anybody. More over there is no unlawful
assembly to do the illegal act with common intention. In view of the above
discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the pending First Information
Report is liable to be quashed.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:00:11 pm )
12. Accordingly the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the
proceedings in STC No. 232 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
Theni is hereby quashed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions
stand closed.
15.04.2025
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
aav
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Theni
2. The Inspector of Police
Theni Police Station
Theni District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:00:11 pm )
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
15.04.2025
_____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/04/2025 12:00:11 pm )
