Madras High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 March, 2025
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2317 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 13.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2317 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.1629 of 2025
1. P.Perumalsamy
2. Mariraj
3. Azhagumuthu
4. Pandiyarajan
5. Indiran
6. Jeyanthi
7. Mariyammal
8. Mariyammal
9. Mageswari
10. Karthigadevi
11. Palathai
12. Muthulakshmi
13. Samuthirakani
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 05:41:50 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2317 of 2025
14. Jeya
15. Karuppusamy
16. Muthuraj
17. Ayyadurai
18. Periyamuniyammal
19. Rajadurai
20. Pandi @ Karunakarapandi
21. Bharath
22. Muthu
23. Vanniyarj ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Inspector of Police,
Kovilpatti East Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
Crime No. 408/2024.
2. Kamaladevi.P,
Rep by the Inspector of Police,
Kovilpatti East Police Station,
Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original petitions have been filed under Section
528 of BNSS to call for the records in connection with the FIR in Crime
No. 408 of 2024 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
2/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 05:41:50 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.2317 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Amarnath
For R1 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the
FIR in Crime No.408 of 2024, pending on the file of the first respondent.
2.The prosecution case is that on 01.09.2024 at about 14.20 hours
when the defacto complainant Police proceeding from Kovilpatti to
Ettyapuram Road nearer to Kaliamman temple, the accused persons
without any permission formed unlawful assembly and blocked the road
and protested for the death of one Masilamani, who died while he was
under employment at Rathnagiri online matchbox company and
thereby, they blocked the road for more than 45 minutes. Therefore, the
respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No.408 of 2024 for the
offences under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of BNS.
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 05:41:50 pm )
first respondent registered a false case against the petitioners in Crime
No. 408 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of
BNS. In fact the petitioners are innocents and they have not committed
any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners demanded
their rights from the said Company to ensure safety measures to the
workers and to pay appropriate relief to the deceased family and there is
no complaint lodged by any general public and there is no disturbance
caused to the public and there are no ingredients to constitute the offence
under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of BNS. Even as per the contents of
the FIR, there are vague allegations and no any specific ingredients to
attract the provisions of under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) BNS
Therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent
police would submit that on 01.09.2024, these petitioners have gathered
in the public road and protested road roko by blocking the road for more
than 45 minutes and they protested for the death of one Masilamani, who
died in the said matchbox company. Therefore, the respondent registered
a case in Crime No. 408 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 189(2)
and 126(2) of BNS and thereafter, the case is now under investigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 05:41:50 pm )
At this stage, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
5.This Court heard both sides and perused the records.
6.In this case all the petitioners have been arrayed as accused for
the offence under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of BNS. According to the
petitioners, they have protested in a peaceful manner and have not caused
any hindrance to anybody and they only demanded to ensure the safety
measures for the workers in the said matchbox company. Therefore,
there are no ingredients to attract the offence under Sections 189(2) and
126(2) of BNS.
7.This Court also perused the records. On perusal of the FIR it is
revealed that these petitioners blocked the road for 45 minutes by
protesting for the death of said Masilamani, who died in the matchbox
company. There is no any complaint given by the public and no any
material to show that these petitioners blocked the road and there are no
ingredients to constitute the offence as against the petitioners.
8.This Court also in the earlier occasions quashed so many
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 05:41:50 pm )
complaints lodged for these type of cases, where the general public
demanding their rights in a peaceful manner. Therefore, in order to
attract the provisions under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of BNS, there is
no any material even as per the FIR.
10. On careful perusal of the the judgments rendered in the case of
Jeevanantham and others .vs. The Inspector of
Police,Velayuthapuram Police Station, Karur District and another
reported in 2018-22 L.W.(Crl.)606 and in the case of K.Sathaiya and
others .vs. The Inspector of Police, Arimalam Police Station,
Pudukottai District in Crl.O.P(MD) No.75 of 2025, 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 05:41:50 pm )
11. In the case on hand the petitioners agitated to improve the
safety measures in the said Company and to settle the compensation to
the deceased family and no any complaint was lodged by any public and
no any public movement was curtailed. To attract the offence under
Section 189(2) of BNS 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 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.
12.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.03.2025
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
LR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 05:41:50 pm )
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by the Inspector of Police,
Kovilpatti East Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
Crime No. 408/2024.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 05:41:50 pm )
P. DHANABAL, J.
LR
13.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 05:41:50 pm )
