Madras High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2025
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4668 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4668 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.3336 and 3337 of 2025
1. Rajappa
2. A.S. Kannappan
3. Bilal Hussain
4. Vaigai Mohamed Sithik
5. Ravisankar
6. Shankar Pandian
7. Anbalagan
8. Sundararajan
9. Senthil Kumar
10. Sabarishwaran
11. Selvam
12. Balamurugan
13. Radhakrishnan
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4668 of 2025
14. Vijayakumar
15. G. Nadarajan
16. S. Karuppaiah
17. P. Nagaraj
18. Sundarrajan
19. Sivakumar
20. Soosairobort
21. Sadhik Batcha
22. Ilangovan ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
North Town Police Station,
Dindigul District.
2. Rajendran,
Special Sub Inspector of Police,
North Town Police Station,
Dindigul District.
3. Rajendran,
Special Sub Inspector of Police,
North Town Police Station,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4668 of 2025
PRAYER: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 528
of BNSS to call for the records pertaining to C.C. No. 518 of 2016 on the
file of Learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul, for alleged
offences Under Sections 143, 145, 341, 188 and 285 of IPC and quash
the same as so far as the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.A. Aruljenifer,
For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash
the proceedings in C.C. No. 518 of 2016 on the file of Learned Judicial
Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul, as against the petitioners.
2.The prosecution case is that all the accused formed unlawful
assembly on 06.04.2016 at about 10.30 hours near Gokul Medicals,
Scheme Road, Dindigul, blocked the road and made protest against
Vaiko and burnt the effigy of Vai Gopalasamy due to the speech made by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm )
him against the leader of DMK, namely, Mr.Karunanithi, thereby, the
second respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioners and
others before the first respondent and based on the same, a case in Crime
No.477 of 2016 has been registered for the offence under Sections 143,
145, 341, 188 & 285 of IPC and thereafter, the first respondent
conducted investigation and filed final report before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. Hence this petition.
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
allegation as against the petitioner is that without any permission the
petitioners have conducted protest and burnt the effigy as against the
deformation speech made by Vai Gopalasamy as against the leader of
DMK, namely, Mr.Karunanithi. In fact, the second respondent lodged a
false complaint against the petitioners and others before the first
respondent. Based on the same, a case in Crime No.477 of 2016 has
been registered for the offence under Sections 143, 145, 341, 188 & 285
of IPC and thereafter, the first respondent without conducting proper
investigation, filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Dindigul and the trial Court also without any prima facie material,
taken the final report on file in C.C.NO.518 of 2016. There are no any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm )
specific overt act against the petitioners and no any public lodged any
complaint against the petitioners and there are no ingredients to attract
the alleged offences. There is a bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C
to take cognizance for the offence under Section 188 of IPC and no any
order has been promulgated by the competent authority and thereby, the
offence under Section 188 of IPC would not attract. There are no
averments to constitute the offence under Section 143 of IPC to attract
the unlawful assembly and there is no material that these petitioners
restrained anybody from proceeding in the public road. There are no
materials to constitute the offence under Section 285 of IPC that the
petitioners dealt with fire or any combustible material so as to endanger
the human life. Therefore, the present case has been foisted as against
the petitioners. Hence the impugned proceedings are liable to be
quashed.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondent police would submit that on 06.04.2016 at about 10.30 hours
near Gokul Medicals, Scheme Road, Dindigul, these petitioners along
with others have made protest against Vaiko, blocked the road and burnt
the effigy of Vai Gopalasamy due to the speech made by him against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm )
leader of DMK, namely, Mr.Karunanithi, thereby, the second respondent
lodged a complaint against the petitioners and others before the first
respondent and based on the same, a case in Crime No.477 of 2016 has
been registered for the offence under Sections 143, 145, 341, 188 & 285
of IPC and thereafter, the first respondent conducted investigation and
filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul.
He would further submit that in the FIR itself there are prima facie
materials against the petitioners and it needs elaborate trial. Therefore,
at this stage, the charge sheet cannot be quashed and prayed to dismiss
this petition.
5.Heard both sides and perused the records.
6.The charges against the petitioners are that on 06.04.2016 at
about 10.30 hours near Gokul Medicals, Scheme Road, Dindigul, these
petitioners along with others have made protest against Vaiko, blocked
the road and burnt the effigy of Vai Gopalasamy due to the speech made
by him against the leader of DMK, namely, Mr.Karunanithi. Therefore,
the second respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners and
others. In order to attract the offence under Sections 143 and 145 of IPC,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm )
there shall be some unlawful assembly, but in this case, there are no any
materials to attract the offence under Sections 143 and 145 of IPC. So
far as the offence under Section 341 of IPC is concerned, the petitioners
have not restrained the general public from proceeding in the public.
Insofar as the offence under Section 188 of IPC is concerned, no any
order has been promulgated by the competent authority and thereby, the
offence under Section 188 of IPC would not attract and as far as the
offence under Section 285 of IPC is concerned, there are no any
materials that the petitioners set fire or used any combustible material so
as to endanger the human life. Even as per the prosecution case, mob of
persons blocked the road and burnt the effigy of Vai.Gopalasamy and no
any endanger to the human life and they only burnt the effigy. Merely
burning the effigy would not attract the offence under Section 285 of IPC
and no order has been promulgated by the competent authority.
Therefore, even as per the FIR and the final report, there are no any
ingredients to constitute the offences under Sections 143, 145, 341, 188
& 285 of IPC. Therefore, without any prima facie materials the
proceedings are liable to be quashed and the pending proceedings are
only futile exercise.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm )
7. 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.
8. On careful perusal of the above said judgments it is clear that
when the assembly of persons were expressing dissatisfaction on the
governance and 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.
9.In view of the above reasons, the proceedings in C.C.No.518 of
2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm )
quashed as against the petitioners. Therefore, this criminal original
petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
30.04.2025
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
LR
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
North Town Police Station,
Dindigul District.
3.The Special Sub Inspector of Police,
North Town Police Station,
Dindigul District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm )
P. DHANABAL, J.
LR
30.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm )
