Madras High Court
R.Dharani Murugesan vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By on 4 November, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19061of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19061 of 2025
and
Crl.MP(MD).Nos.15870 and 15871 of 2025
1.R.Dharani Murugesan
2.C.Karthigairaj
3.A.Nagarajan
4.U.Ilavarasan
5.R.Veerabagu
6.S.Shanmuganathan
7.K.Baladhandayuthapani
8.R.Marikumar
9.K.Kalarani ... Petitioners / Accused No.1 to 9
Vs.
1.The State of Tamilnadu Rep by,
The Inspector of Police,
Kenikkarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram.
Crime No.6/2025. ... 1st Respondent / Complainant
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 11:53:50 am )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19061of 2025
2.Mr.Arul,
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Kenikarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram.. ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records pertaining to the impugned charge sheet in STC.No.887 of
2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Ramanathapuram in crime no.6 of
2025 dated 03.01.2025 on the file of respondent No.1 for the alleged offences
under Sections 189(2), 223 and 293 of BNS, 2023 (Corresponding Sections are
143, 188 and 291 of IPC) and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.V. Malaiyendran
For R1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the impugned final report in S.T.C.No.887 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Ramanathapuram, which was filed for the offences under Section 189(2), 223 and 293 of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 143, 188 and 291 of IPC).
2. The allegation in the impugned final report is that the petitioners, along with others, indulged in a protest without valid permission and caused nuisance and disturbance to the general public, besides causing obstruction to 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 11:53:50 am ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19061of 2025 traffic.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners, along with others, were exercising their right to assemble peacefully, which could not, by any stretch of imagination, constitute the offences alleged. He would rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jeevanandham and others vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District and another, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 13698 in support of his submissions.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, per contra, would submit that the petitioners, along with others, participated in an unauthorized protest and caused obstruction to traffic, besides causing nuisance and disturbance to the general public; and therefore, the impugned final report is justified.
5. Admittedly, the petitioners, along with others, participated in a protest. The question is whether such an act would constitute the offences alleged by the prosecution.
3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 11:53:50 am ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19061of 2025
6. In the case of Jeevanandham, referred to supra, which related to a protest without valid permission and when the accused had filed quash petition of the final report filed for the offences under Sections 143 and 188 of IPC, this Court had held as follows:
"35.Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11836 of 2018:-
In this case, the Final Report has been filed only for an offence under Section 143 of Cr.P.C and the Court below has taken cognizance of the Final Report. A reading of the allegations made in the Final Report would show that a group of persons were agitating for non supply of the essential commodities in a ration shop. In this case, the FIR was registered under Section 143 and 188 of IPC. The Final Report was filed for an offence under Section 143 of IPC. Insofar as the offence under Section 143 of IPC is concerned, the concerned Police Officer has quoted Section 30(2) of the Police Act, and therefore, has straight away proceeded to register an FIR under Section 143 of IPC. As stated above, a mere violation of the so-called promulgation under Section 30(2) of the Police Act will not make out an offence under Section 143 of IPC by straight away declaring an assembly of persons to be an unlawful assembly. The power under Section 30(2) of the Police Act is merely regulatory in nature. In fact, Section 32 of the Police Act itself provides for a penalty for disobeying an order issued under Section 30(2) of the Police Act with a punishment of a fine not exceeding 200 rupees, where as an offence under Section 143 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months. Therefore, a violation of the so-called promulgation under Section 30(2) of the Police Act will not by itself constitute an offence under Section 143 of IPC. In this case, the assembly of persons were made to express dissatisfaction of the governance and claiming for minimum rights that are guaranteed to an ordinary citizen. If such an assembly of persons are to be trifled by registering an FIR 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 11:53:50 am ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19061of 2025 under Section 143 of IPC 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.''
7. The above observations of this Court would squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. Further, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner intended to cause public nuisance. Hence, the offence under Section 291 of IPC would not be made out and no useful purpose would be served in continuing the prosecution.
8. Since the allegation does not constitute any of the offences, this Court is of the view that the impugned final report in S.T.C.No.887 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Ramanathapuram, is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.
9. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
04.11.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Indu
5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 11:53:50 am )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19061of 2025
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Kenikkarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Kenikarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram..
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 11:53:50 am )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19061of 2025
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Indu
Crl.O.P(MD).No.19061of 2025
04.11.2025
7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 11:53:50 am )