Madras High Court
N.R.Dhanabalan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 1 October, 2019
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.10.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.O.P(MD) No.4627 of 2018
and CRL.M.P (MD)2271 of 2018
1.N.R.Dhanabalan
2.Vairam @ Violet Dhanabalam
3.G.Arasan
4.L.Ravi @ Dinger L Ravi
5.T.Murugan
6.T.Gurupatham
7.C.Senthil Kumar
8.Selvakumar
9.T.Manikandan
10.N.Robin
11.N.Jestin Anand
12.T.Murugesan
13.M.Jeevarathinam
14.D.Pitchaimani
15.A.Chellappan
16.Dr.A.Dharmaraj
17.T.Mohan
18.S.M.Gurusamy
19.J.Asaithambi
20.M.A.M.Balaji
21.M.Manivasagam
22.Sivakumar
23.S.V.R.Vijaymaris
24.G.Santhanam
25.R.Victor Vijay
26.T.Solaiyappan
27.V.T.Dharmaraj
28.R.V.D.Ramaiah
29.M.Ramaraj
30.R.Achuthan
31.P.Prabakran
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
32.S.Joseph Arockiya Rasaiah
33. M.Elango
34.A.Ravi
35.R.Ravichandran
36.R.R.Singh @ Rejisingh
37.G.Marikani
38.M.Santhakumar
39.S.Thirumalaichamy'
40.K.Duraichamy
41.S.M.Vellathurai
42.D.Dharmaseelan
43.G.Dennis ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by
The Inspector of Police
Valliyoor Police Station
Tirunelveli District
2. S.Sajeev ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call
for the entire records and quash the First Information Report in Crime No.124
of 2018 dated 25.02.2018 on the file of the first respondent police under
alleged sections 143,188 and 283 of IPC.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan
For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi
No.1 Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.124 of 2018 dated 25.02.2018 on the file of the first respondent police under alleged sections 143,188 and 283 of IPC http://www.judis.nic.in 3
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners got permission only for conducting Executive Committee Meeting and General Council Meeting for their political party on 25.02.2018 between 11.00 a.m to 4.45 p.m at SVP Mahal, Valliyoor from the concerned authorities but before conducting meeting the petitioners conducted a procession from entrance of Valliyoor ie., near to the Concordia Higher Secondary School to the venue of the meeting without getting any permission. On the basis of the above said allegation, the respondent police registered the complaint and filed a First Information Report against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 143,188 and 283 of IPC in Crime No.124 of 2018.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocents. 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 authority. Further he submitted that the petitioners or any other members had never involved in any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioners or others restrained anybody. However, the officials of the respondent police had beaten the petitioners and others. When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, under Sections http://www.judis.nic.in 4 143,188 and 283 of IPC as against the petitioners and others. Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioners got permission only for conducting Executive Committee Meeting and General Council Meeting for their political party on 25.02.2018 between 11.00 a.m to 4.45 p.m at SVP Mahal, Valliyoor from the concerned authorities but before conducting meeting the petitioners conducted a procession from entrance of Valliyoor ie., near to the Concordia Higher Secondary School to the venue of the meeting without getting any permission and there are specific allegations as against the petitioners 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. Heard Mr.P.M.Vishnu Varthanan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent. http://www.judis.nic.in 5
6. On perusal of the charge, it is seen that the petitioners conducted a procession from entrance of Valliyoor ie., near to the Concordia Higher Secondary School to the venue of the meeting without getting any permission . Therefore the respondent police levelled the charges under Sections 143,188 and 283 of IPC of I.P.C. as against the petitioners and others. 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 6
7. The only question for consideration is that whether the registration of case under Sections 143, 188 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 143,188 and 283 of IPC. He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences http://www.judis.nic.in 7 under Section 188 of IPC. As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC. Further, the complaint does not even state as to how the protest formed by the petitioners and others is an unlawful protest 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 Crime No. 124 of 2018, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.10.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Arul
To:
1.The Inspector of Police
Valliyoor Police Station
Tirunelveli District
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Arul
CRL.O.P(MD) No.4627 of 2018
and CRL.M.P (MD)2271 of 2018
01.10.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in