Madras High Court
Pattai Meera @ Battanimiran vs State Represented Through on 22 December, 2023
Author: G.Ilangovan
Bench: G.Ilangovan
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23302 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 22/12/2023
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.OP(MD)No.23302 of 2023
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.18115 of 2023
Pattai Meera @ Battanimiran : Petitioner/A4
Vs.
1.State represented through
The Inspector of Police,
Devipattinam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(In Crime No.56 of 2022) : R1/Complainant
2.Mr.Senthilkumar,
Village Administrative Officer,
Devipattinam,
Ramanathapuram. : R2/De-facto Complainant
PRAYER:-Criminal Original Petition has been filed
under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call
for the records of Impugned First Information Report in
Crime No.56 of 2022 on the file of the respondent No.1
Police Station, STC No.2281 of 2022 at Judicial
Magistrate No.I at Ramanathapuram and quash the same as
illegal as against the petitioner and pass such further
or other orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Riyaz
For Respondents : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate
(Criminal side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23302 of 2023
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the case in STC No.2281 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram in Crime No.56 of 2022 on the file of the 1st respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
On 20/03/2022 between 05.00 pm and 06.00 pm near Devipattinam Old Bus Stand, the accused persons who belongs to Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam, gathered unlawfully and made protest against the Central Government over the verdict of Karnataka High Court in respect of Hijab issue. Upon which, a case in Crime No.56 of 2022 was registered for the offences under sections 143, 341, 290 and 291 of IPC. After completing the investigation, final report has been filed and it was taken cognizance in STC No.2281 of 2022 by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ramanathapuram.
3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that none of the allegations mentioned either in the FIR or in the final report attract any of the ingredients of the offences alleged against him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/9 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23302 of 2023
4.Heard both sides.
5.For attracting the offence under section 143 of IPC, the ingredients of section 141 of IPC must be fulfilled.
6.Section 141 of IPC reads as under:-
"Section 141.Unlawful assembly.-An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly:, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is-
First-To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or Second-To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third.-To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or Fourth.-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/9 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23302 of 2023 enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right: or Fifth.-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
Explanation.-An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly."
7.When we apply the ingredients to the factual position of the case, it is seen that none of the ingredients mentioned in 141 of IPC get attracted. The petitioner and others have simply made protest against Central Government over the issue of wearing of hijab in the educational institutions in Karnataka. It is a democratic right of every person to raise voice against the political or Government demanding legal action. Such a right has been exercised by the petitioner. So, that cannot be construed as 'unlawful or illegal'.
8.Section 341 of IPC reads as under:-
"341.Punishment for wrongful restrain.-Whoever wrongfully restrains https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/9 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23302 of 2023 any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.”
9.Similarly, section 341 of IPC is not attracted. There is no allegation to the effect that they prevented the public from proceeding in a particular way.
10.Section 290 of IPC reads as follows:-
“290.Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for.– Whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.”
11.Section 290 of IPC is a general Section prescribing punishment for public nuisance which is not otherwise provided for. As said earlier, there is no witness examined to show that there was a public nuisance committed by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that there are no ingredients https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/9 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23302 of 2023 made out for prosecuting the petitioner for offence under Section 290 of IPC.
12.The next allegation is that the petitioner committed offence under Section 291 of IPC. It defines 'continuance of nuisance after injunction to discontinue' in the following words:-
“291.continuance of nuisance after injunction to discontinue - Whoever repeats or continues a public nuisance, having been enjoined by any public servant who has lawful authority to issue such injunction not to repeat or continue such nuisance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. ”
13.Under Section 291 of I.P.C., the accused must either repeat or continue public nuisance and the accused must be enjoined by a public servant and that the public servant must be having authority under law to issue such an injunction so as to not repeat or continue such nuisance. Though the prosecution has alleged that the accused persons have violated the directions of the Police, they have not specified the directions or orders which have been violated by them. Moreover, as rightly https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/9 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23302 of 2023 contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the first respondent has not shown that the injunction order was in force at that point of time.
14.Considering the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the averments made in the final report will not attract any of the ingredients under Sections 291 of IPC.
15.For the reasons stated above, this criminal original petition stands allowed. The case in STC No.2281 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram, in connection with FIR in Crime No.56 of 2022 on the file of the Devipattinam Police Station is hereby quashed against the petitioner. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
22/12/2023 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/9 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23302 of 2023 To,
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ramanathapuram.
2.The Inspector of Police, Devipattinam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/9 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.23302 of 2023 G.ILANGOVAN, J er Crl.OP(MD)No.23302 of 2023 22/12/2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/9