Madras High Court
K.Sathaiya vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 January, 2025
Author: M. Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M. Nirmal Kumar
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P(MD).No.75 of 2025
and Crl.M.P(MD) No.77 of 2025
1. K.Sathaiya
2. K. Selvam
3. S.P. Ganesan
4. A. Ganesan
... Petitioners
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Arimalam Police Station,
Pudukottai District. (Crime No. 96 of 2024).
2. M. Rengasamy
... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 528 of BNSS to
call for the records pertaining to the impugned First Information Report
Crime No. 96 of 2024, dated 26.09.2024 on the file of the Respondent
No.1 registered u/s. 189(2) and 126(2) and 285 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita (BNS) 2023 and quash the same as illegal as far as the petitioners
is concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr. T.Thirumurugan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar (R1)
Additional Public Prosecutor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2
ORDER
This Criminal Original petition has been filed to quash the
impugned First Information Report Crime No. 96 of 2024, dated
26.09.2024 on the file of the Respondent No.1 registered u/s. 189(2) and
126(2) and 285 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 as far as the
petitioners is concerned.
2. The case against the petitioners is that on 26.09.2024, the
Village Administrative Officer of Senkeerai Vattam, Thirumayam Taluk,
had given a complainant stating that under him Senkeerai, Rayavaram,
Rayaragunatha Samuthiram Village are there. A portion of the land in
Senkeerai Panchayat was allowed with Rayapuram Panchayat group and
in this regard, orders obtained by the Rayapuram Panchayat Thalaivar
through the Court. Based on the Court order, the District Collector of
Pudukottai, in Na.Ka.No.671/2020, dated 14.06.2021, had grouped
certain survey numbers to Rayapuram Panchayat, in which Village
Administration Office is also situated. The revenue tax was paid by the
said college to Senkeerai Panchayat and thereby, Senkeerai Village got
affected. In this regard, the petitioners along with 28 persons of their
village had conducted tharna at about 11 am., before the Senkeerai
junction, which caused disturbance to the movement of public and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
vehicles. Hence, complaint was lodged and case has been registered.
3. The contention of the petitioners is that on the representation
of the petitioners, the Revenue Inspector of Senkeerai Region on
11.03.2020 had given a report that S.No.259 /9 falls within the Senkeerai
village and not under Rayavaram Panchayat. During the survey, the
Deputy Block Development Officer and Village Administrative Officer
were present and recorded the statement. A report has been submitted to
the Tahsildar, who in turn had given report to the Block Development
Officer, which had confirmed the Survey No.259/9 comes under the
Senkeerai Panchayat. The Block Development Officer vide in
Na.Ka.No.767/20185/jp4, dated 17.06.2020, had written communication
to the Assistant Director (Panchayat), seeking clarification. In the
meanwhile, the Collector had passed order in contra to the field report
and revenue officials finding that S.No.259 /9 is not within the Senkeerai
Panchayat and hence, the protest. He further submitted that showing
protest in democratic society is a fundamental right and there is no public
restrained. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in support
of his contention had relied upon the judgment reported in 2018 2 LW
(Crl) 606 [Jeevanandham and others vs. The Inspector of Police
Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District] dated 20.09.2018
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and in the case of Sri Raja vs Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town
Police Station Virudhunagar District and others, in batch of cases in
Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 2019 dated 30.08.2019.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on
the complaint of the Village Administrative Officer, case was registered.
In this case, after completion of investigation final report is also filed
before the concerned Court through e-filing.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the view that showing protest by holding tharna is
permissible, which cannot be construed and projected as illegal act. In
this case, case projected is that the movement of the public was
restrained to proceed further in the direction as they intended and
movement of vehicle has been affected. No pubic had lodged complaint
stating about the incident, in such circumstances, claiming that the
petitioners holding tharna and caused public nuisance would not be
proper. Accordingly, the proceedings in Crime No.96 of 2024 on the file
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of the first respondent police and its consequential proceedings are
hereby quashed in its entirety and this Criminal Original Petition is
allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.01.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
PNM
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Arimalam Police Station,
Pudukottai District. (Crime No. 96 of 2024).
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
PNM
ORDER IN
06.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
