Madras High Court
S.S.S. Mani @ Subramanian vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 April, 2025
Crl.O.P(MD)No.584 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
Crl.O.P(MD)No.584 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.380 and 382 of 2025
S.S.S. Mani @ Subramanian ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Melapalayam Police Station,
Tirunelveli City,
Tirunelveli District.
(In Crime No. 979.2013).
2. D. Jeyasekaran,
Inspector of Police,
Melapalayam Police Station,
Tirunelveli City,
Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 528
of BNSS tocall for the records relating to the Impugned Charge Sheet in
S.T.C. No. 331 of 2014 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:16:07 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.584 of 2025
No.IV, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District and quash the same as illegal in
so far as the Petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Aravinthan
for M/s.Aran Legal Consultancy
For R1 and R2 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned charge sheet in S.T.C. No. 331 of 2014 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
2.The prosecution case is that the the petitioner and five others attempted to burn the effigy of the former Minister Salman Khurshid before the Passport Office, Melapalayam, Tirunelveli District on 13.11.2013. Therefore, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No.979 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 143, 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:16:07 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.584 of 2025 188, 285 r/w Section 511 of IPC and thereafter, the first respondent conducted investigation and filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli and the same was taken on file in S.T.C.NO.331 of 2014 and the petitioner has been arrayed as second accused. Hence this petition.
3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent lodged a false complaint against the petitioner and five others before the first respondent. Based on the same, a case in Crime No.979 of 2013 has been registered for the offence under Sections 143, 188, 285 r/w Section 511 of IPC and thereafter, the first respondent, without conducting proper investigation, filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli and the trial Court has also without any prima facie material, taken the final report on file in S.T.C.NO.331 of 2014. There are no materials available as against the petitioner to attract the provisions under Sections 143 and 188 of IPC and as far as Section 285 of IPC is concerned, mere burning of an effigy itself would not make out a case under Section 285 of IPC. Therefore, the pending proceedings are nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:16:07 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.584 of 2025
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that petitioner and five others attempted to burn the effigy of the former Minister Salman Khurshid before the Passport Office, Melapalayam, Tirunelveli District on 13.11.2013. Therefore, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No.979 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 143, 188, 285 r/w Section 511 of IPC and thereafter, the first respondent conducted investigation and filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli and the same was taken on file in S.T.C.NO.331 of 2014. As per the FIR and final report, there are specific allegations against the petitioner, thereby, 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.On perusal of records, it is seen that the second respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner and five others before the first respondent stating that they tried to burn the effigy of the said former 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:16:07 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.584 of 2025 Minister. In fact no any public lodged a complaint that the petitioner and others restrained them from using public place. To attract the offence under Section 143 of IPC, there are no ingredients available in the FIR and no averments to constitute the unlawful assembly. 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. As far as the offence under Section 285 of IPC is concerned, there are no any materials that the petitioner set fire or used any combustible material so as to endanger the human life. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. The first respondent, without conducting proper investigation, filed final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli and the trial Court also without any prima facie material, taken the final report on file in S.T.C.NO.331 of 2014.
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 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:16:07 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.584 of 2025
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. To attract the offence under Section 188 of IPC there should be an order promulgated by the competent authority and the same has to be violated by any person, to that effect the competent person has to lodge a complaint. In the case on hand no any order was promulgated by the competent authority.
9.In view of the above said reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the pending proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings in S.T.C.NO.331 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judicial 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:16:07 pm ) Crl.O.P(MD)No.584 of 2025 Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli is quashed as against the petitioner. Therefore, this criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
29.04.2025
Internet :Yes
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
LR
7/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:16:07 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.584 of 2025
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV,
Tirunelveli.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Melapalayam Police Station,
Tirunelveli City,
Tirunelveli District.
(In Crime No. 979.2013).
3. D. Jeyasekaran,
Inspector of Police,
Melapalayam Police Station,
Tirunelveli City,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:16:07 pm )
Crl.O.P(MD)No.584 of 2025
P. DHANABAL, J.
LR
Crl.O.P(MD)No.584 of 2025
29.04.2025
9/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 07:16:07 pm )