High Court · 2025

CRL OP No. 34152 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16-12-2025CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRACrl.O.P. No.34152 of 2025 and Crl.M.P. Nos.23909 and 23911 of 20251.Sathishkumar2.Iyyappan3.Thangaraj4.Murugesan5.Meganathan6.Sivavijayan7.Parthasarathy8.Anandan Rk9.Sathiyanathan10.Baskar11.Velu @ Onra Adi VeluPetitioners/AA 1- 10 & A12vs.State represented bythe Inspector of PoliceK6 T.P. Chathiram Police StationChennai 600 030Respondent/ComplainantCriminal Original Petition filed under Sec.528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Cr.No.586/2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, K6, T.P. Chathiram Police Station, Chennai and quash the same.__________Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 34152 of 2025For petitionerMs. A.S. AishwaryaFor respondentMr. S. SanthoshGovt. Advocate (Crl. Side)ORDERThis criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the FIR in Cr.No.586 of 2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, K6, T.P.Chathiram Police Station, Chennai.2.Pithily stated, the case of the prosecution is as follows:On 12.12.2018 at 4.15 p.m., when the de facto complainant was in charge of T.P. Chathiram Police Station as Inspector and was on bandobust duty, the members belonging to Hindu Munnani party had planned to perform a yagam in Sri Palayaththamman Temple at Rani Anna Nagar for the purpose of re-construction of the demolished Rama Temple at Ayodhya. While permission was denied to them, the accused, notwithstanding denial of permission, assembled to perform a yagam. The instruction given by the police to disperse from the place fell on their deaf ears. Hence, they were arrested and after body search, they were handed over custody to the para. Based on the information, a case was registered in Cr.No.586 of 2018 for the offence under Section 151 Cr.P.C. Seeking quashment of the said case, this criminal original petition has been filed by 11 of the accused.__________Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 34152 of 20253.The learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions:i.Even as per the complainant, the accused are said to have assembled to perform a yagam. Performing a yagam will not fall under the category of a cognizable offence. Under such circumstances, since the ingredients of the offence are not made out, preventive arrest of the petitioners is illegal.ii.Though the petitioners were let to go in the evening, the registration of the case itself is illegal. iii.No prohibitory orders were issued by any authority and under such circumstances, the arrest of the petitioners and the registration of the FIR is illegal.4.Based on the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought quashment of the impugned FIR and allowing of the criminal original petition.5.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police advanced the following submissions:The petitioners sought permission to perform a yagam for re-construction of demolished Rama Temple at Ayodhya. The respondent police denied permission for the same. Nevertheless, the accused gathered to perform a yagam on 12.12.2018 at 4.15 __________Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 34152 of 2025p.m. When the Inspector of Police who was on duty asked them to disperse, they did not choose to follow the said instruction and hence, in order to prevent an untoward incident, they were arrested and brought to the police station and were let off in the same evening and the case is still pending.6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.7.At the threshold, for the sake of ready reference, Section 151 Cr.P.C. is worthy of reproduction:“151.Arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offences.‒ (1) A police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented.(2)No person arrested under sub-section (1) shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding twenty four hours from the time of his arrest unless his further detention is required or authorised under any other provisions of this Code or of any other law for the time being in force.”8.The object of the aforesaid provision is to prevent commission of an offence by arresting beforehand the person who designs or intends to commit the same. In order that the section may apply, the following conditions must be satisfied:__________Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 34152 of 2025i.The police officer must have known that the offender had a design to commit a cognizable offence;ii.The commission would not be otherwise prevented; and iii.The person to be arrested must be a party to that design;9.In the case on hand, by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that the attempt of the petitioners to perform a yagam can be construed as a cognizable offence. Further, from the facts narrated in the complaint, this Court is of the considered opinion that instead of registering the case under Section 151 Cr.P.C., the respondent police ought to have invoked the provision under Section 151 IPC which reads thus:“151.Knowingly joining or continuing in assembly of five or more persons after it has been commanded to disperse.‒ Whoever knowingly joins or continues in any assembly of five or more persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace, after such assembly has been lawfully commanded to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.”10.As opined above, even if the case had been registered by the respondent police for the offence under Section 151 IPC, the maximum punishment for the said offence is only imprisonment for a period of six months or fine or both, in respect of which, the final report ought to have been filed within a period of one year as per Section 468(2)(b), Cr.P.C. However, even according to the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), investigation is still __________Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 34152 of 2025pending and final report has not been filed. To be noted, more than seven years has elapsed since the registration of the FIR. 11.For the aforesaid reasons, the registration and continuation of the case in Cr.No.586 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police is an abuse of process of law and hence, the same is quashed.12.Before parting, this Court points out that like the respondent police, for his part, the petitioners too have quoted a wrong provision at paragraph 1 of the petition. To expatiate, instead of stating that the respondent has registered a case against the petitioners under Section 151 Cr.P.C., they have averred that the respondent has registered a case against the petitioners under Section 151 C.P.C. (emphasis supplied)In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.16.12.2025asi/cad__________Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 34152 of 2025To1.The Inspector of PoliceK6 T.P. Chathiram Police StationChennai 600 0302.The Public ProsecutorMadras High CourtChennai 600 104__________Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 34152 of 2025A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.asi/cadCrl.O.P. No.34152 of 202516.12.2025__________Page 8 of 8