R.Rajkumar vs State Rep.By on 3 July, 2019

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

R.Rajkumar vs State Rep.By on 3 July, 2019

Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh

                                                            1

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 03.07.2019

                                                         CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

                                             Crl.OP Nos.17321 of 2019
                                                        and
                                              Crl.MP.No.8704 of 2019

                     1.R.Rajkumar
                     2.P.kanagaraja
                     3.N.Mahalingam
                     4.R.Kaleshwari
                     5.M.Bakkiyam
                     6.A.Prabhu Sebastian Arokiya Samy
                     7.T.John Christuraj
                     8.P.Jeyalakshmi
                     9.M.Sinivasan                                               .. Petitioners


                                                         .Vs.

                     1.State rep.by
                      The Inspector of Police,
                      Tirupur South Police Station,
                      Tirupur.
                      (Crime No.974 of 2018)

                     2.Mr.Sivakumar
                      Special Sub Inspector of Police,
                      Tirupur South Police Station,
                      Tirupur.                                                  ..Respondents



                     PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
                     Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned
                     FIR in Cr.No.974 of 2018         pending investigation on the file of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
                     respondent Police and quash the same.
                                                              2




                                          For Petitioners         : Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy

                                          For Respondents : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, APP



                                                            ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Cr.No.974 of 2018 registered under Sections 143 & 290 of IPC, against the petitioners.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent Police.

3. This Court already had an occasion to consider the very same issue and had quashed the proceedings in Crl.O.P.[MD].No.3860 of 2019 by an order dated 14.03.2019. The relevant portions of the order is extracted hereunder:

"4. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners staged the protest against the Government Orders. In the course of agitation, the Government Order namely G.O.Ms.Nos.303 and 234 were alleged to have been burnt by the accused http://www.judis.nic.in persons. Hence, the complaint has been filed by the 3 second respondent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on the face of the FIR, no offence is made out and for the offence under Section 285 IPC, there must be fire to endanger human life. Mere burning of a paper even though it may be a Government Order is not likely to endanger human life. There is no indication that the burning of a piece of paper endangers human life.

6. This Court in A.Santhos Yadav .Vs. the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Chennai [2015 (40) CTC 317] has held as follows:

A careful reading of Section 285 would show that the mere burning of an effigy, by itself, was not made a punishable offence under the IPC. In fact, there is not even a reference in Section 285, I.P.C., to the burning of effigies. Section 285 is actually inserted in Chapter XIV of the I.P.C., which deals with offences affecting public health, safety, convenience, decency and morals. Section 285, itself is grouped along with offences dealing with negligence. The manner in which Section 285 is worded would show that doing anything with fire or any combustible matter any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or to be likely to case hurt or injury to any other person, is made http://www.judis.nic.in punishable. Therefore, acting rashly or negligently 4 so as to endanger human life or in a manner likely to cause hurt or injury, is a sine qua non for making an act come within the meaning of Section 285."

7. This Court is in agreement with the above said judgment. Hence, the Impugned FIR in Crime No.2014 of 2018 dated 26.11.2018 pending on the file of the respondent no.1 is quashed and accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."

4. The above order will squarely apply to the facts of the present case.

5. In the result, the FIR in Cr.No.974 of 2018, is hereby quashed and accordingly this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.




                                                                                        03.07.2019

                     Index        : Yes/No
                     Internet     : Yes/No

                     KP




http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                      5




                     To

                     1.The Inspector of Police,
                      Tirupur South Police Station,
                      Tirupur.

                     2.The Public Prosecutor,
                       High Court, Madras.




http://www.judis.nic.in
                          6




                              N. ANAND VENKATESH., J

                                                   KP




                              Crl.O.P.No.17321 of 2019




                                            03.07.2019




http://www.judis.nic.in

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court