Madras High Court
P.Rajkumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 December, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22405 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.12.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22405 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.13982 of 2024
P.Rajkumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Dindigul Town West Police Station,
Dindigul.
(Crime No.367 of 2022)
2.Rajaram,
Working as Special Sub-Inspector of Police,
Dindigul Town West Police Station,
Dindigul. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023, to call for the records relating to the case registered in Crime No.
367 of 2022, dated 10.04.2024, on the file of the first respondent Police
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrance
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22405 of 2024
For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate
(Criminal Side)
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed invoking Section 528 B.N.S.S., 2023, seeking orders to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.367 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent Police.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.10.2022, at about 11:15 a.m., while the second respondent and other police personnel from the first respondent were on patrol duty, they observed that the petitioner and 19 others, who are members of the AIADMK political party, staged a protest and road blockade at Kallarai Medu Junction, Dindigul–Trichy Main Road. This protest was held without obtaining permission from the first respondent, condemning the arrest of their party's interim General Secretary and leader of opposition at Chennai and the protest caused traffic snarls at the location for about half an hour. Hence, the second respondent/de-facto complainant lodged a complaint, and based on the said complaint, a case was registered under Crime No.367 of 2022 for offences under Sections 143, 341, 290, and 291 of the I.P.C. 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22405 of 2024
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner, an office bearer of the Dindigul City AIADMK Wing, along with other AIADMK functionaries, assembled peacefully near Kallarai Medu Junction to express their opposition to the illegal arrest of their Party General Secretary. After raising slogans, they peacefully disbanded without causing any disturbance. The protest was within their fundamental rights, and no hindrances to the public or traffic were caused. The learned counsel contended that the first respondent Police had registered a false case, possibly to appease the ruling party functionaries, and thus, requested the quashing of the case.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent submits that the protest organized by the petitioner and 19 others was not authorized by the appropriate authorities, as no permission was obtained from the Police or any other competent authority. The protest, which took place at Kallarai Medu Junction, Dindigul–Trichy Main Road, not only violated legal provisions regarding public assembly but also caused a significant disturbance to the public. 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22405 of 2024 The protest resulted in traffic snarls for about half an hour, affecting the daily commute and public convenience.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) further submits that, following the incident, the second respondent/de-facto complainant lodged a complaint based on observations made during their patrol duty. An investigation was conducted, which substantiated the claims of the protest causing public inconvenience. Hence, a case was registered against the petitioner and others under the relevant Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with unlawful assembly (Section 143), wrongful restraint (Section 341), and causing public nuisance (Sections 290 and 291).
6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent further submits that after the investigation was completed, a charge sheet was filed, which was taken on file in C.C.No.1546 of 2023 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul. The case is now scheduled for hearing on 18.02.2025 for the appearance of the accused persons.
4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22405 of 2024
7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) emphasized that the charges were supported by factual evidence and that the matter was taken up for prosecution with due legal procedure. The Government Advocate (Criminal side) also pointed out that the petitioner's and others' actions, irrespective of their political affiliation, resulted in a violation of public order, which necessitated legal action. Hence, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) opposed the quashing of the case, stating that it was rightly registered based on the legal provisions for ensuring public safety and order.
8. Considering the submissions of both parties and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the petitioner and other AIADMK functionaries assembled to express their opposition to the arrest of their Party General Secretary. The right to protest is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. However, such protests must be conducted peacefully and without causing any disturbance to public order.
5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22405 of 2024
9. Furthermore, the protest was conducted peacefully, with the protestors raising slogans and peacefully disbanding afterwards. The learned counsel for petitioner highlighted that the protest did not result in any physical violence or direct harm to individuals and that the protestors had no intention to disrupt public life or traffic. This is a critical factor in assessing whether the protest was within the boundaries of the law. Further, there was some disruption to traffic for approximately half an hour at Kallarai Medu Junction. However, this Court also takes into account that such disruptions may occur occasionally during peaceful protests, especially if adequate arrangements are not made for crowd control. The extent and duration of the traffic snarls in this case, do not appear to be severe enough to justify the charges filed under the Sections mentioned in the F.I.R. and there was no significant harm caused to public safety or order.
10. The charge sheet primarily focuses on the allegations of unlawful assembly and public nuisance. However, this Court finds that the incident in question did not result in significant damage or disruption to public life. The protest, though unauthorized, was largely peaceful and did not escalate into violence or severe disorder. 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22405 of 2024
11. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner. Considering the fact that the protest was in a peaceful manner and did not cause lasting harm to public order, this Court finds that the continuation of the case may not serve the interests of justice.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and as a sequel, the proceedings in Crime No.367 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent Police, consequently, the proceedings in C.C.No. 1546 of 2023 pending against the petitioner and others before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Dindigul, also stands quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
NCC : Yes / No 19.12.2024
Index : Yes / No
smn2
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Dindigul Town West Police Station,
Dindigul.
7/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22405 of 2024
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22405 of 2024
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
smn2
Order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.22405 of 2024
Dated: 19.12.2024
9/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis