Madras High Court
Piramanayagam vs The State Rep. By on 3 October, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.10.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P(MD) No.4658 of 2018
and Crl. M.P.(MD) Nos. 2286 & 2287 of 2019
Piramanayagam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Junction Police Station,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District,
Crime No. 941 of 2016
2. K. Paulthurai,
Inspector of Police,
Junction Police Station,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call
for the records in connection with STC No. 367 of 2017, on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District in relation to
Crime No.941 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Junction Police
Station, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District and quash the same as devoid of
merits.
For Petitioner : Mr. S. Palani Velayutham
For R-1 : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings of STC No. 367 of 2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District in relation to Crime No.941 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Junction Police Station, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District as against the petitioner.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the the petitioner along with other accused who are the members of Congress Political Party has unlawfull assembled before the Indian Overseas Bank ATM and protested against the issue of demonetization and also against the ruling Bharathiya Janatha Party. On the basis of the above said allegations, the first respondent police registered the complaint and filed a charge sheet against these petitioners for the offences under Sections 143 and 186 of IPC in Crime No. 941 of 2016 the same was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. The said criminal proceedings is under challenge in this Criminal Original Petition.
3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is innocent. 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 3 authority. Further he submitted that the petitioner or any other members had never disturbed public, public tranquility and peace. On precautionary measures, the respondent police had registered this case, under Section 143 and 186 of IPC as against the petitioner. Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.
4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner along with other accused who are the members of Congress Political Party has unlawfully assembled before the Indian Overseas Bank ATM and protested against the issue of demonetization and also against the ruling Bharathiya Janatha Party and there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to proceed with the trial. 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 register FIR and investigate the case. Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.
5. Perused the material documents available on record. http://www.judis.nic.in 4
6. On perusal of the charge, it is seen that the petitioner along with other accused who are the members of Congress Political Party has unlawfully assembled before the Indian Overseas Bank ATM and protested against the issue of demonetization and also against the ruling Bharathiya Janatha Party. Therefore the respondent police levelled the charges under Sections 143 and 186 of I.P.C. as against the petitioner. Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charges against the petitioners. 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 thousand rupees, or with both.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5
7.The only question for consideration is that whether the registration of case under Sections 143, 186 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 hall 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. In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143 and 186 IPC. He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 186 of IPC. As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 186 of IPC. Further, the http://www.judis.nic.in 6 complaint does not even state as to how the petitioner along with other accused has unlawfully assembled before the Indian Overseas Bank ATM and protested against the issue of demonetization and also against the ruling Bharathiya Janatha Party and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC. Therefore, the final report cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 367 of 2017 in Crime No. 941 of 2016, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03.10.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
ksa
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
To:
1. The Inspector of Police,
Junction Police Station,
Tirunelveli,
Tirunelveli District
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ksa
CRL.O.P(MD) No.4658 of 2018
03.10.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in