Madras High Court
Mohammed Ibrahim vs State Rep By on 17 December, 2020
Author: J.Nisha Banu
Bench: J.Nisha Banu
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14989 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.12.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14989 of 2020 and
Crl.MP(MD) No.7178 of 2020
1.Mohammed Ibrahim
(Wrongly mentioned as Mohamed Ibrahim
in F.I.R instead of Mohammed Ibrahim)
2.Sheik Mohammed
(Wrongly mentioned as Sheik Mohemed
in F.I.R instead of Sheik Mohammed) ... Petitioner/Accused 4 & 5
Vs.
1.State Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Vilakkuthoon Police Station,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
(Crime No.1272 of 2020) ... 1st Respondent/
Complainant
2.Mr.Ramesh
Sub Inspector of Police,
Vilakkuthoon Police Station,
Madurai City,
Madurai District. ...2nd Respondent /Defacto
Complainant
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records pertaining to the
impugned First Information Report in Crime no.1272 of 2020, on the file of the
respondent No.1 police station and quash as against the petitioners concerned
as illegal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14989 of 2020
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For R1 : Ms.V.Neelakandan
Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.1272 of 2020, on the file of the 1st respondent.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioners would state that based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein alleging that the petitioners along with others had conducted a demonstration near Anna Statue, Keelaveli Veethi junction on 10.10.2020, without getting proper permission, demanding justice for the raped victim girl, who belongs to Uttarpradesh and thereby they violated the social distance during this COVID-19 pandemic situation, a case in Crime No.1272 of 2020 has been registered against the petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 151, 270, 291 IPC and Section 3 of Epidemic Disease Act, 1897. The learned counsel would further state that on the face of FIR, it does not make out any offence and that the issue in the present case is covered by the decisions of this Court in CRL.OP(MD)No.3770 of 2012 dated 06.06.2018 and Jeevanantham vs. State reported in 2018 (2) K.W. (Crl) 606. http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14989 of 2020
3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would state that without getting proper permission, the petitioners along with others had conducted a demonstration, demanding justice for the raped victim girl, who belongs to Uttarpradesh and without maintaining social distance norms, during this COVID-19 pandemic situation and also caused disturbance to the free flow of public and he would fairly state that no violence or untoward incident had taken place.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) for the 1st respondent.
5.In the decision relied on by the petitioners reported in 2018 (2) K.W. (Crl) 606, Jeevanantham vs. State, this Court has held as follows:-
''In all the cases, the assembly of persons were made to express dissatisfaction of the governance and claiming for minimum rights that are guaranteed to a ordinary citizen. If such an assembly of persons are to be trifled by registering an FIR under Section 143 of IPC 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.'' http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14989 of 2020
6.The above judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. Though, there are prima facie materials to justify the registration of the First Information Report, I am of the view that its continuance is not warranted. This is because no untoward incident had taken place. The country had witnessed protests all over by different sections of people against various amendments. Since the protest was conducted in a peaceful manner and even the First Information Report does not disclose any act of violence or happening of untoward incident, I am of the view that the continued prosecution is not warranted. Quashing the same will secure the ends of justice.
7.Accordingly, the impugned First Information Report in Crime No. 1272 of 2020, on the file of the first respondent police is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
vrn 17.12.2020 NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14989 of 2020 To
1.The Inspector of Police, Vilakkuthoon Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai.
(Crime No.1272 of 2020)
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14989 of 2020 J.NISHA BANU, J.
vrn ORDER MADE IN Crl.O.P.(MD).No.14989 of 2020 and Crl.MP(MD) No.7178 of 2020 17.12.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6