Madras High Court
Unknown vs State Rep. By on 15 September, 2022
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.OP.No.19887 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.19887 of 2022
and
Crl.MP.No.13101 of 2022
1. S.Kaushik
2. Ukendiran
3. Ananthababu
4. A.Gokul
5. K.Silambarasan
6. M.Kalirajan
7. A.Sathish Kumar
8. V.Saranvel
9. L.Aadhibhagavan
10. S.Surya
11. Vignesh
12. R.Gopi
13. Beemarao @ Rajasekaran
14. Sri Karthikeyan
15. R.Harikrishna Kumar
16. L.Muthu Ramalingam
17. N.Hari Krishnan
18. D.Pragadeeshwaran
19. M.Anbarasu
20. Akash
21. Dinesh Kumar
22. S.Panneerselvam
23. S.Siva
24. M.Arun Muthukumar
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.19887 of 2022
25. K.Loganathan
26. S.Venkatraj
27. P.Senthurpandi
28. Karuppasamy
29. Nidhi Tripathi
30. Susila
31. Amar Vanchitha @ Amarvan Nidhi ... Petitioners
Vs.
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
E-3,Teynampet Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR
in Crime No.53 of 2022 dated 14.02.2022 on the file of the Inspector of
Police, E-3, Teynampet Police Station, Chennai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj
For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.53 of 2022 registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.19887 of 2022 under Sections 143, 147, 153A, 353 of IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act as against the petitioners.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that on 14.02.2022 at about 12.30 hours, a group consisting of 35 persons belong to Akil Bharathi Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) party, tried to move towards the official residence of Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Though they were prevented by the defacto complainant and her police party, they raised slogans seeking justice for the death of student one Lavanya, who committed suicide in the case of forceful conversion to Christianity and also raised slogans that the main culprit involved in the said Lavanya's death has come out from the jail and there must be a proper action besides, they also demanded prevention of Voluntary Conversion of Religious Act. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the FIR was registered without any application of mind. When the petitioners were exercising their democratic right, more so, a student demanding justice for the death of another student and as such, no offence is made 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.19887 of 2022 out as against the petitioners. Even as per the allegations made in the FIR, no offence is made out under Section 153 A of IPC, the entire allegations do not disclose any offence under Sections 143 and 147 of IPC, and there cannot be any penal law while exercising their fundamental right under Articles 19(1)a and 19(1)b of Constitution of India. Infact, they are exercising their fundamental rights and freedom. Therefore, they have gathered only to draw the attention of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and they have no other motive. Even according to the prosecution, the petitioners never used any weapons and they have no intention to commit the offence. He further relied upon the order passed by this Court in Crl.OP.No.15951 of 2022, thereby, FIR against one of the co-accused called Nivedha was quashed. He would further submit that this Court considered all the points raised by the petitioner and quashed the FIR. All the petitioners are not named in the FIR and the allegations are fake and fault.
4. A perusal of counter filed by the respondent reveals that all the petitioners belonged to Akil Bharathi Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) party members in the age group of 18 to 28 years from various places all over 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.19887 of 2022 India and they have come down to Chennai with a pre-mediated plan to indulge in religious riots and to enter into the official residence of Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and cause a security breach. The place was chosen to cause threat to national security, since the Japanese embassy was adjacent to the residence of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Further, they were remanded to Judicial Custody before the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. It further reveals that 12 accused persons had submitted false names and addresses. At the time of remanding the said accused persons, the learned defence counsel informed the accused persons that they will get bail only if they give correct name and addresses. Pursuant to same, separate FIR has been registered and pending against them.
5. All the petitioners came to the place of occurrence and even after police intimation that they are doing unlawful thing, they stayed there and used force for fulfilling their motive. There were specific allegations to attract the offence under Sections 143 and 147 of IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan Vs. Union of India and another reported in 2018 (9) Scale 134 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.19887 of 2022 categorically observed that right to protest is a fundamental right under constitution, It is not untrammeled and unlimited in its scope, it is subject to reasonable restrictions like the interest of sovereignty, integrity of India and public Order. It also recognized the right of the Government to designate places for organizing protest and also to ban protest in certain places if they were of the opinion that organizing such protest would result in inconvenience to the public.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners have not obtained any permission for holding of dharnas, processions and rallies. The Supreme Court in the case of Ramlila Maidan Incident in re. Reported in 2012 (5) SCC, 1, observed that it is neither correct nor judicially permissible to say that taking of police permission for holding of dharnas, processions and rallies of the present kind is irrelevant or not required in law. The requirement of associating police, which is an important organ of the State for ensuring implementation of the rule of law, while holding such large scale meetings, dharnas and protest would not infringe the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India. This would squarely fall within the regulatory 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.19887 of 2022 mechanism of reasonable restrictions, contemplated under Articles 19(2) and 19(3) of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, it would help in ensuring due social order and would also not impinge upon the rights of others as contemplate under Article 21 of the constitution of India. The police authorities, who are required to maintain the social order and public tranquility, should have a say in the organizational matters relating to holding of dharnas, processions,agitations and rallies of the present kind. Therefore, the protest is a form of free speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1) (b) of the Constitution of India, it has to be exercised with reasonable restrictions. Whereas in the case in hand, at no stretch of imagination, it can be construed as peaceful protest rather it is a case of unlawful assembly, rioting and breach of peace on the face of it. Slogans against other religions were raised and police were stopped from performing their official duty, their uniform was torn while providing security to the official residence of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. That apart, the petitioners also caused damage to the police vehicle. Therefore, the respondent has rightly registered the FIR under Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, 1992. 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.19887 of 2022
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that FIR has been quashed as against one of the co-accused vide order dated 11.07. 2022 in Crl.OP.No.15951 of 2022 . This Court mainly on the ground that out of four students from India, the petitioner appears to be the only one selected from Tamil Nadu to represent on behalf of India, for the Youth 20 (Y20) Summit to be held at Jakarta, Indonesia from 17th to 24th July 2022.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.09.2022 Internet: Yes Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Vv To
1. The Inspector of Police, E-3, Teynampet Police Station, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.19887 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Vv Crl.O.P.No.19887 of 2022 and Crl.MP.No.13101 of 2022 15.09.2022 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis