Madras High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2025
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4668 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4668 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.3336 and 3337 of 2025
1. Rajappa
2. A.S. Kannappan
3. Bilal Hussain
4. Vaigai Mohamed Sithik
5. Ravisankar
6. Shankar Pandian
7. Anbalagan
8. Sundararajan
9. Senthil Kumar
10. Sabarishwaran
11. Selvam
12. Balamurugan
13. Radhakrishnan
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4668 of 2025
14. Vijayakumar
15. G. Nadarajan
16. S. Karuppaiah
17. P. Nagaraj
18. Sundarrajan
19. Sivakumar
20. Soosairobort
21. Sadhik Batcha
22. Ilangovan ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
North Town Police Station,
Dindigul District.
2. Rajendran,
Special Sub Inspector of Police,
North Town Police Station,
Dindigul District.
3. Rajendran,
Special Sub Inspector of Police,
North Town Police Station,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.4668 of 2025
PRAYER: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 528
of BNSS to call for the records pertaining to C.C. No. 518 of 2016 on the
file of Learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul, for alleged
offences Under Sections 143, 145, 341, 188 and 285 of IPC and quash
the same as so far as the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.A. Aruljenifer,
For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 518 of 2016 on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul, as against the petitioners.
2.The prosecution case is that all the accused formed unlawful assembly on 06.04.2016 at about 10.30 hours near Gokul Medicals, Scheme Road, Dindigul, blocked the road and made protest against Vaiko and burnt the effigy of Vai Gopalasamy due to the speech made by 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.4668 of 2025 him against the leader of DMK, namely, Mr.Karunanithi, thereby, the second respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioners and others before the first respondent and based on the same, a case in Crime No.477 of 2016 has been registered for the offence under Sections 143, 145, 341, 188 & 285 of IPC and thereafter, the first respondent conducted investigation and filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. Hence this petition.
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegation as against the petitioner is that without any permission the petitioners have conducted protest and burnt the effigy as against the deformation speech made by Vai Gopalasamy as against the leader of DMK, namely, Mr.Karunanithi. In fact, the second respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioners and others before the first respondent. Based on the same, a case in Crime No.477 of 2016 has been registered for the offence under Sections 143, 145, 341, 188 & 285 of IPC and thereafter, the first respondent without conducting proper investigation, filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and the trial Court also without any prima facie material, taken the final report on file in C.C.NO.518 of 2016. There are no any 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.4668 of 2025 specific overt act against the petitioners and no any public lodged any complaint against the petitioners and there are no ingredients to attract the alleged offences. There is a bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C to take cognizance for the offence under Section 188 of IPC and no any order has been promulgated by the competent authority and thereby, the offence under Section 188 of IPC would not attract. There are no averments to constitute the offence under Section 143 of IPC to attract the unlawful assembly and there is no material that these petitioners restrained anybody from proceeding in the public road. There are no materials to constitute the offence under Section 285 of IPC that the petitioners dealt with fire or any combustible material so as to endanger the human life. Therefore, the present case has been foisted as against the petitioners. Hence the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that on 06.04.2016 at about 10.30 hours near Gokul Medicals, Scheme Road, Dindigul, these petitioners along with others have made protest against Vaiko, blocked the road and burnt the effigy of Vai Gopalasamy due to the speech made by him against the 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.4668 of 2025 leader of DMK, namely, Mr.Karunanithi, thereby, the second respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners and others before the first respondent and based on the same, a case in Crime No.477 of 2016 has been registered for the offence under Sections 143, 145, 341, 188 & 285 of IPC and thereafter, the first respondent conducted investigation and filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. He would further submit that in the FIR itself there are prima facie materials against the petitioners and it needs elaborate trial. Therefore, at this stage, the charge sheet cannot be quashed and prayed to dismiss this petition.
5.Heard both sides and perused the records.
6.The charges against the petitioners are that on 06.04.2016 at about 10.30 hours near Gokul Medicals, Scheme Road, Dindigul, these petitioners along with others have made protest against Vaiko, blocked the road and burnt the effigy of Vai Gopalasamy due to the speech made by him against the leader of DMK, namely, Mr.Karunanithi. Therefore, the second respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners and others. In order to attract the offence under Sections 143 and 145 of IPC, 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.4668 of 2025 there shall be some unlawful assembly, but in this case, there are no any materials to attract the offence under Sections 143 and 145 of IPC. So far as the offence under Section 341 of IPC is concerned, the petitioners have not restrained the general public from proceeding in the public. Insofar as the offence under Section 188 of IPC is concerned, no any order has been promulgated by the competent authority and thereby, the offence under Section 188 of IPC would not attract and as far as the offence under Section 285 of IPC is concerned, there are no any materials that the petitioners set fire or used any combustible material so as to endanger the human life. Even as per the prosecution case, mob of persons blocked the road and burnt the effigy of Vai.Gopalasamy and no any endanger to the human life and they only burnt the effigy. Merely burning the effigy would not attract the offence under Section 285 of IPC and no order has been promulgated by the competent authority. Therefore, even as per the FIR and the final report, there are no any ingredients to constitute the offences under Sections 143, 145, 341, 188 & 285 of IPC. Therefore, without any prima facie materials the proceedings are liable to be quashed and the pending proceedings are only futile exercise.
7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.4668 of 2025
7. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on the following judgments:
a) Jeevanantham and others .vs. The Inspector of Police,Velayuthapuram Police Station, Karur District and another reported in 2018-22 L.W.(Crl.)606
b) K.Sathaiya and others .vs. The Inspector of Police, Arimalam Police Station, Pudukottai District in Crl.O.P(MD) No.75 of 2025.
8. On careful perusal of the above said judgments it is clear that when the assembly of persons were expressing dissatisfaction on the governance and claiming for minimum rights that are guaranteed to an ordinary citizen and if such an assembly of persons are to be trifled by registering an FIR under Section 143 of IPC and now equivalent to Section 189(2) of BNS 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.
9.In view of the above reasons, the proceedings in C.C.No.518 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul is 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.4668 of 2025 quashed as against the petitioners. Therefore, this criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
30.04.2025
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
LR
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Dindigul
2. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, North Town Police Station, Dindigul District.
3.The Special Sub Inspector of Police, North Town Police Station, Dindigul District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.4668 of 2025 P. DHANABAL, J.
LR Crl.O.P(MD)No.4668 of 2025 30.04.2025 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 03:05:42 pm )