Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 124A, 143, 188
- Epidemic Diseases Act s. 3
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners belong to Periyariya Unarvalur Koottamaippu and they assembled on State Day on 01.11.2020 at 9.10 a.m and shouted slogan “jkpœehL e« ehL e« jhaf ehis bfh©lhL” and caused annoyance to the public during the lock…
Judgment
Crl.O.P.No.29443 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30.10.2025CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRACrl.O.P.No.29443 of 20251. Sekar M 2. Loganathan A3. Annadurai R4. Bharath Kumar A5. Kumar S6. Nakenthiran S7. Porselvan S 8. Parthiban M9. Murali S10. Sathish M11.Veeran S12. Suresh S13. Santhosh P ... Petitioners Vs.
The State reprsented by itsThe Inspector of PoliceThiruvotriyur Police StationChennai District..Respondent1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.29443 of 2025PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/Section 482 Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to F.I.R.No.5684/2020, dated 01.11.2020 on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same. For Petitioners: Mr. S.ManoharanFor Respondent :Mr. R.VinothrajaGovernment Advocate (Crl Side)
O R D E RThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records and quash the further proceedings in Crime No.5684 of 2020 pending on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners belong to Periyariya Unarvalur Koottamaippu and they assembled on State Day on 01.11.2020 at 9.10 a.m and shouted slogan “jkpœehL e« ehL e« jhaf ehis bfh©lhL” and caused annoyance to the public during the lock down period and therefore, a case was registered by the respondent police against the petitioners. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.29443 of 20253. According to the petitioners, they did not act against the interest of the State. The respondent police arrested the petitioners without any enquiry and that there is no person to lodge a complaint in this regard. The de facto complainant and the investigation officer are one and the same. Based on the said complaint, the respondent registered a case in Crime No.5684 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 124A of IPC and Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Government of Tamil Nadu, by issuing Government Order (G.O.).No.118 dated 21.10.2020, officially declared 01.11.2020 as Tamil Nadu day.
Pursuant to the said Government order, the declaration was widely published through newspapers and telecasted in television channels informing the general public of the State on this G.O., and the petitioners also duly observed and celebrated Tamil Nadu Day on the said date in accordance with the direction and intentions expressed by the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the facts of the case are similar to the case in Jeevanandham and others vs. The Inspector of Police Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District [2018 2 LW (Crl) 606] and Sri Raja vs Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station Virudhunagar District and others in (Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.29443 of 20252019 decided on 30.08.2019). He would further submit that in the above decisions, it is held that the respondent cannot register a case u/s.188 of IPC.5.
Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the petitioners had illegally gathered and shouted slogan and caused annoyance to the public as against the Government. He would further submit that when the respondent had asked them to disperse, they have dispersed from the place. He would also fairly submit that there was no violence or untoward incident and nobody was injured in the said incident.6. Heard the learned counsel and perused the materials available on record.7. In the judgment in Jeevanandham, supra, it has been held that the police has no right to file a case under Section 188 of IPC. In such circumstances, the respondent has no right to register the case and to investigate the matter.8. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings pending in respect of the petitioners and other accused also.
Operative part
4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.29443 of 20259. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.5684 of 2020, pending on file of the Respondent Police, is hereby quashed in respect of all the accused. 30.10.2025nvsriNeutral Citation: Yes/NoTo 1. The Inspector of PoliceThiruvotriyur Police StationChennai District2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.29443 of 2025A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J. nvsriCrl.O.P.No.29443 of 202530.10.20256/6
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Crime No
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 124A, 143, 188; Epidemic Diseases Act — s. 3.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.