Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.5746 of 2025For Respondent : Mr.K.M.D.MuhilanGovernment Advocate (Crl.side) for R1O R D E RThis Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.250 of 2017 pending on the file of the respondent police.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the de-facto complainant was in his official duty, it is alleged that one Balakrishnan, Ambedkar Statute Organization, along with 30 persons had entered into his office and requested to remove the fence of the Ambedkar Statute situated at Panruti Road, Melpattampakkam and to rework the same on commemoration of the birthday of Ambedkar. It is further alleged that when the de-facto complainant refused to do the same, it is stated that the accused persons started to raise slogans against the same. Hence, a complaint was lodged and based on the complaint, an FIR in Crime No.250 of 2017 was registered for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 143, and 188 of the IPC, 1860. Aggrieved over the Cr.No.250 of 2017, on the file of Nellikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore Page 2 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5746 of 2025District, the petitioner had filed the present petition.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the right to freely assemble and also right to freely express one's view are constitutionally protected fundamental rights under Part III of the Indian Constitution and their enjoyment can only be in reasonable manner and can be curtailed through a fair and non-arbitrary procedure as provided under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that it is the duty of the Government to protect the rights of freedom of speech and assembly that is so essential to a democracy. According to Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., no Court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of IPC, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. Further he submitted that the petitioner or any other members had never been involved in any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioner or others restrained anybody. However, the officials of the respondent police had Page 3 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5746 of 2025beaten the petitioner and others. When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, under Sections 143 and 188 of the IPC only as against the petitioner and others. Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding. 4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner has unlawfully assembled at the de-facto complainant's office to remove the fence of the Ambedkar Statute situated at Panruti Road, Melpattampakkam, thereby preventing the public from entering the office. 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. More over, the petitioner is habitual offender in such crimes. Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Page 4 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5746 of 2025Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.6. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the allegations do not constitute any offences under Sections 341, 143 and 188 of the IPC, 1860. It is also seen that the allegations levelled 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 Page 5 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5746 of 2025cause 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.7.The only question for consideration is that whether the registration of case under Sections 188 and 353 of 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 shall 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 Page 6 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5746 of 2025Section 188 of IPC, the public servant should lodge a complaint in writing and other than that no Court has power to take cognizance. 8.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgement in Mahaboob Basha Vs. Sambanda Reddiar and others reported in 1994(1) Crimes, Page 477. He also relied upon a judgment in a batch of quash petitions, reported in 2018-2-L.W. (Crl.) 606 in Crl.O.P. (MD)No. 1356 of 2018, dated 20.09.2018 in the case of Jeevanandham and others Vs. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Karur District, and this Court held in Paragraph-25, as follows :-"25.In view of the discussions, the following guidelines are issued insofar as an offence under Section 188 of IPC, is concerned: a) A Police Officer cannot register an FIR for any of the offences falling under Section 172 to 188 of IPC. b) A Police Officer by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 41 of Cr.P.C will have the authority to take action under Section 41 of Cr.P.C., when a cognizable offence under Section 188 IPC is committed in his presence or where such action is required, to prevent such person Page 7 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5746 of 2025from committing an offence under Section 188 of IPC. c) The role of the Police Officer will be confined only to the preventive action as stipulated under Section 41 of Cr.P.C and immediately thereafter, he has to inform about the same to the public servant concerned/authorised, to enable such public servant to give a complaint in writing before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who shall take cognizance of such complaint on being prima facie satisfied with the requirements of Section 188 of IPC. d) In order to attract the provisions of Section 188 of IPC, the written complaint of the public servant concerned should reflect the following ingredients namely; i) that there must be an order promulgated by the public servant;ii) that such public servant is lawfully empowered to promulgate it; iii) that the person with knowledge of such order and being directed by such order to abstain from doing certain act or to take certain order with certain property in his possession and under his management, has disobeyed;Page 8 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5746 of 2025and iv)that such disobedience causes or tends to cause; (a) obstruction,annoyance or risk of it to any person lawfully employed; or (b) danger to human life, health or safety; or (c) a riot or affray. e) The promulgation issued under Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861, must satisfy the test of reasonableness and can only be in the nature of a regulatory power and not a blanket power to trifle any democratic dissent of the citizens by the Police. f) The promulgation through which, the order is made known must be by something done openly and in public and private information will not be a promulgation. The order must be notified or published by beat of drum or in a Gazette or published in a newspaper with a wide circulation. g) No Judicial Magistrate should take cognizance of a Final Report when it reflects an offence under Section 172 to 188 of IPC. An FIR or a Final Report will not become void ab initio insofar as offences other than Section 172 to 188 of IPC and a Final Report can be taken Page 9 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5746 of 2025cognizance by the Magistrate insofar as offences not covered under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. h) The Director General of Police, Chennai and Inspector General of the various Zones are directed to immediately formulate a process by specifically empowering public servants dealing with for an offence under Section 188 of IPC to ensure that there is no delay in filing a written complaint by the public servants concerned under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.9. 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 Page 10 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5746 of 2025taken 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 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 Page 11 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5746 of 2025(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.”10. It is also relevant to note the definition of “Unlawful Assembly”. Section 141 IPC reads thus:“141. 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 - First - 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 Second - To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; orPage 12 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5746 of 2025Third - To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; orFourth - 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; orFifth - 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.-Explanation – An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.”11.Only when the assembly fit into any of the above circumstances, it 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. Page 13 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5746 of 202512.In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 341, 143 and 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 petitioner and others is an unlawful protest and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 and 188 of IPC. Therefore, the FIR cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.13.Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.250 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent, is hereby quashed and this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 28.02.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderjdTo1.The Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station,Page 14 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5746 of 2025 Cuddalore District.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Page 15 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.5746 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.jdCrl.O.P.No.5746 of 2025 28.02.2025Page 16 of 16