Madras High Court
A.Saravanan vs The Inspector Of Police on 28 February, 2025
Crl.O.P(MD) No.3409 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P(MD) No.3409 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.2356 and 2357 of 2025
A.Saravanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Inspector of Police
Vasudevanallur Police Station
Tenkasi District
2. Mahalingam
Special Sub Inspector
Vasudevanallur Police Station
Tenkasi District ..Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
to call for entire records pertaining to the case in STC No.728 of 2022 on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, Tenkasi District and
quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Arunachalam
For Respondents : Mr. M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate(Crl side)
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:01 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD) No.3409 of 2025
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in STC No.728 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Sivagiri, Tenkasi District.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.08.2021 at about 10.00
a.m.,when the respondent police was on patrol duty the petitioner along
with 14 others assembled in front of the Vasudevanallur bus stop and
staged protest against the privatization policy of the central government
without obtaining any permission from the concerned authorities, thereby
causing hindrance to the free movement of the public, hence the First
Information came to be registered. Based on the complaint given by the
second respondent the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.238
of 2022 for the offences under Sections 143 and 283 of IPC. After
elaborate investigation the first respondent filed charge sheet and the trial
Court has also taken the charge sheet on file in STC No. 728 of 2022.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that based on the complaint given by the second respondent the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:01 pm )
respondent registered a case against the petitioner and others alleging
that the petitioner along with others assembled in front of
Vasudevanallur bus stop and they were staging protest against the
Central Government Policy with out obtaining any permission from the
concerned authorities. Infact there is no any criminal intent or action by
the petitioner and the other participants that could constitute the offence
under Sections 143 and 283 of IPC which intended purpose negate the
every possibility of any alleged offence. There are no prima facie
materials to show criminal intention or disturbance to register the case
for the above said offences. Already this Court in Crl.O.P(MD) No.1819
of 2025 has quashed the proceedings for protest in peaceful manner.
Further the petitioner is serving as a Ward Member of Ward-14,
Vasudevanallur Town Panchayat violating his fundamental right to
peaceful demonstration without causing any disturbance to others the
case has been registered. Therefore there is no ingredients available to
constitute the offence under Section 143 and 283 of IPC, thereby the
present charge sheet is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:01 pm )
4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that
the petitioner along with others demonstrated protest by causing
disturbance to the public and without any permission they conducted
demonstration . Therefore the second respondent lodged complaint and
based on the complaint First Information Report has been registered and
after elaborate investigation they filed final report and there are prima
facie materials available as against the petitioner and therefore the
petitioner has to face the trial and hence the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. The respondent police has registered a case against the
petitioner and others in Crime No.238 of 2022 for the offences under
Sections 143 and 283 of IPC. Thereafter the respondent police conducted
investigation and filed final report. The main allegation against the
petitioner and others is that without any permission they formed unlawful
assembly and obstructed the public road and raised slogans, therefore
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:01 pm )
they registered case. Further unlawful assembly has been defined in
Section 141 of IPC, which reads as follows:
141. Unlawful assembly- An assembly of five or more
persons is designated as 'unlawful assembly', if the common
object of the persons composing that assembly is :
1. To overawe by criminal force, or show of 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
2. To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal
process; or
3. To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other
offence; or
4. 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
5. 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.
7. In this case to attract the definition of unlawful assembly there
are no specific allegations within the meaning of Section 141 of IPC.
Therefore the unlawful assembly itself would not attract in this case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:01 pm )
There is no any common object to fulfill the condition of Section 141 of
IPC. So far as offence under Section 283 IPC is concerned there is no
allegation that this petitioner is doing the act by committing to take
order with any property in his possession or under his charge, causes
danger, obstruction or injury to any person in any public way or public
line of navigation, therefore there is no ingredient to constitute the
offence under Section 283 of IPC.
8. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
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.
9. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:01 pm )
ordinary citizen and if such an assembly of persons are to be trifled by
registering an FIR under Section 143 of IPC 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.
10. In the case on hand the petitioners agitated against the
privatization policy of the Central Government 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 of IPC there is
no any mention that these petitioners formed unlawful assembly with a
common intention to resist the execution of any law or of any legal
progress. Further the said protest 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 charge sheet is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:01 pm )
11. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
the proceedings in STC No.728 of 2022 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, Tenkasi District is hereby quashed.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
28.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
aav
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri, Tenkasi District
2. The Inspector of Police
Vasudevanallur Police Station
Tenkasi District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:01 pm )
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
28.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 04:24:01 pm )
