Madras High Court

N.Manjula vs State By on 13 March, 2025

Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan

                                                                                            Crl.O.P.No. 7333 of 2025

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   DATED: 13.03.2025

                                                            CORAM:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                              Crl.O.P.No.7333 of 2025 and
                                               Crl.M.P.No.4689 of 2025

                     N.Manjula                                                            ... Petitioner
                                                                 Vs.

                     State by:
                     The Inspector of Police
                     Mandharakuppam Police Station
                     Cuddalore District.
                     (Crime No.169 of 2019)                                                  ..Respondent

                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the
                     Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the entire records
                     connected with the case in FIR No.169 of 2019, on the file of the
                     respondent police and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is
                     concerned.


                                     For Petitioner         : Mr.S.Sathia Chandran


                                     For Respondent         : Mr.A.Gopinath,
                                                              Government Advocate (crl.side)



                     Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                 ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 12:17:00 pm )
                                                                                             Crl.O.P.No. 7333 of 2025




                                                               ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in

Crime No. 169 of 2019 on the file of the respondent.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.08.2019, the Sub-

Inspector of Police while patrolling near Mandharakuppam Bazar,

observed the protest led by one Amirthalingam at the No.1 traffic point

on Cuddalore-Virudhachalam main road. The protestors, including the

petitioner, blocked the traffic, obstructed public movement and caused

disturbance to the general public without prior permission. Hence, the

respondent police registered a FIR in Crime No.169 of 2019 for the

offences punishable under Section 188, 341 of IPC and Section 151 of

Cr.P.C.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has been falsely

implicated in this case. The learned counsel further submitted that the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 12:17:00 pm )

Hon-ble Supreme Court of India has held that the right to freely assemble

and also right to freely express once view or constitutionally protected

rights under Part III and their enjoyment can be only in proportional

manner through a fair and non~arbitrary procedure provided in Article 19

of Constitution of India. He further submitted that it is the duty of the

Government to protect the rights of freedom of speech and assemble that

is so essential to a democracy. According to Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C.,

no Court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of IPC,

unless the public servant has written order from the authority. Further he

submitted that the petitioner or any other members had never involved in

any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioner or

others restrained anybody. However, the officials of the respondent

police had beaten the petitioner and others. When there was lot of

members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered

this case, under Sections 341 and 188 of IPC and Section 151 of Cr.P.C

as against the petitioner and others. Therefore, he sought for quashing the

proceeding.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 12:17:00 pm )

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

submitted that the petitioner along with others restrained the public and

caused traffic and there are specific allegations as against the petitioner.

Further, he would submit that Section 188 of IPC is a cognizable offence

and therefore it is the duty of the police to register a case. Though there

is a bar under Section 195(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. to take cognizance for the

offence under Section 188 of IPC, it does not mean that the police cannot

habitual offender by committing this kind of crimes. Therefore, he

vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the

same.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the

materials available on record.

6. On perusal of the charge, it is seen that the petitioner along

with other accused persons joined together assembled near Cuddalore to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 12:17:00 pm )

Virudachalam main road and blocked the traffic, obstructed public

movement and caused disturbance to the general public. Therefore, the

respondent police levelled the charges under Sections 341 and 188 of

I.P.C as against the petitioner and others. Except the official witnesses,

no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to

substantiate the charges against the petitioner. It is also seen from the

charge itself that the charges are very simple in nature and trivial.

Section 188 reads as follows:

“?188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant ?- Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes to tender to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 12:17:00 pm )

thousand rupees, or with both.”

7. The only question for consideration is that whether the

registration of case under Sections 188 and 341 of IPC, registered by the

respondent is permissible under law or not? In this regard it is relevant

to extract Section 195(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 :-

“?195.Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Courts shall take cognizance-

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive)of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or

(ii)of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;...?”

Therefore, it is very clear that for taking cognizance of the offences

under Section 188 of IPC, the public servant should lodge a complaint in

writing and other than that no Court has power to take cognizance.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 12:17:00 pm )

judgement 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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 12:17:00 pm )

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

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 12:17:00 pm )

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 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”.

9. 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 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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 12:17:00 pm )

(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.-”

10. Only when the assembly fit into any of the above

circumstances, it could be construed as unlawful. The accused had not

shown any criminal force to commit any mischief, crime or any offence

or by way of criminal force or tried to take possession of the property or

right to use of incorporeal right which is in possession of enjoyment of

others or rights.

11. In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/03/2025 12:17:00 pm )

registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 341

and 188 of IPC. She is not a competent person to register FIR for the

offences under Section 188 of IPC. As such, the First Information Report

or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188