Madras High Court
Uthayakumar vs State Represented By on 28 March, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-03-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL OP(MD) NO. 22770 of 2024
Uthayakumar .. Petitioner
Vs
1. State represented by
The Inspector Of Police,
Nilakkottai Police Station
Dindugal District
(Crime No. 278 of 2022).
2. V.Guruvenkatraj
Special Sub Inspector of Police,
Nilakottai Police Station,
Dindigul District. ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records pertaining the case in
Crime No.278 of 2022 dated 19.10.2022 for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 341, 290, 291 of IPC, on the file of the 1st respondent and quash
the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Arvindasamy for Mr.Narayanan
For R1 : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate
Criminal Side
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 01:33:23 pm ) Crime No.278 of 2022 dated 19.10.2022 for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 290 and 291 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and 53 others belongs to a political party and gathered near four road junction at Dindigul without any permission from the respondent Police and caused disturbance to the public traffic and nuisance against the arrest of former Chief Minister Edapadi Palanisamy. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.278 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 290 and 291 of IPC, as against the petitioner. Hence, he prayed to quash the same.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police is about to file a final report.
Page 2 of 8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 01:33:23 pm )
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused materials available on record.
6. It is to be noted that while exercising the power under Section 482, the Court should be slow, at the same time, if the Court finds that from the entire materials collected by the prosecution taken as a whole, would not constitute any offence, in such situation, directing the parties to undergo ordeal of trial will be a futile exercise and it will infringe the right of the persons and in this regard, the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335, has been held as follows :
“........
(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R.
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 01:33:23 pm ) Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or -complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non~cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 01:33:23 pm )
7. It is also relevant to note the definition of Unlawful Assembly:
“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 -
(i) to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
(ii) to resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
(iii) to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
(iv) 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 enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
(v) 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.-
8. Only when the assembly fit into any of the above circumstances, it Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 01:33:23 pm ) could be construed as unlawful. The accused had not shown any criminal force to commit any mischief, crime or any offence or by way of criminal force or tried to take possession of the property or right to use of incorporeal right which is in possession of enjoyment of others or rights.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the FIR in Crime No.278 of 2022 registered by the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 290 and 291 of IPC is hereby quashed as against the petitioner alone.
28.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
drl
To
1. The Inspector Of Police,
Nilakkottai Police Station
Dindugal District
2. V.Guruvenkatraj
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 01:33:23 pm )
Special Sub Inspector of Police,
Nilakottai Police Station,
Dindigul District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
drl
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 01:33:23 pm )
CRL OP(MD) NO. 22770 of 2024
28.03.2025
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 01:33:23 pm )