High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No.9486 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 01.04.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No.9486 of 2025andCrl.M.P.Nos.6271 and 6273 of 2025Rajendran ... PetitionerVs1. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Police Station, Ariyalur District. (Crime No.1113 of 2020)2. R.Umasankar ... RespondentsCriminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.N.S., to call for the records relating to the STC.No.812 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ariyalur and QUASH the same by allowing this Criminal Original Petition.For Petitioner: Mr.G.Nareshkumar For Respondents: Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side) (for R1)1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9486 of 2025O R D E RThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash S.T.C.No.812 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ariyalur, thereby taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 269, 270, 271 and 341 of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with political members and other alliance parties' members, had staged a protest against the Farm Bill, which was passed by the Union Government of India without adhering to social distancing and safety protocols issued in view of Covid-19 and without any permission from the first respondent Police. 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.1113 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 269, 270, 271 and 341 of IPC, as against the 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9486 of 2025petitioner and others and the same has been taken cognizance in S.T.C.No.812 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ariyalur. Hence he prayed to quash the same.4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and perused the 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 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9486 of 2025Vs. 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 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 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9486 of 2025complaint 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.”7. It is also relevant to note that according to Section 141 of IPC, Unlawful Assembly means-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 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9486 of 2025criminal 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; orThird- 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.” 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9486 of 20258. Only when the assembly fit into any of the above circumstances, it could be construed as unlawful. In this case, the accused had neither shown any criminal force to commit any mischief, crime or offence nor by way of criminal force, tried to take possession of a tangible or intangible property or a corporeal or incorporeal right which is in possession and enjoyment of others.9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceeding in S.T.C.No.812 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ariyalur for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 269, 270, 271 and 341 of IPC is hereby quashed as against the petitioner alone. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.01.04.2025Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation/Yes/Nokv7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9486 of 2025To1. The Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Police Station, Ariyalur District.2. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ariyalur.3.. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.9486 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.kvCrl.O.P.No.9486 of 202501.04.20259/9