High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P(MD)No.2317 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 13.03.2025CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABALCrl.O.P(MD)No.2317 of 2025andCrl.M.P(MD)No.1629 of 20251. P.Perumalsamy2. Mariraj3. Azhagumuthu4. Pandiyarajan5. Indiran6. Jeyanthi7. Mariyammal8. Mariyammal9. Mageswari10. Karthigadevi11. Palathai12. Muthulakshmi13. Samuthirakani1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.2317 of 202514. Jeya15. Karuppusamy16. Muthuraj17. Ayyadurai18. Periyamuniyammal19. Rajadurai20. Pandi @ Karunakarapandi21. Bharath22. Muthu23. Vanniyarj ... PetitionersVs1. The State of Tamil Nadu,Rep by the Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti East Police Station, Thoothukudi District. Crime No. 408/2024.2. Kamaladevi.P,Rep by the Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti East Police Station, Thoothukudi District. ... RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original petitions have been filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records in connection with the FIR in Crime No. 408 of 2024 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.2317 of 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Amarnath For R1 : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) O R D E RThis criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.408 of 2024, pending on the file of the first respondent.2.The prosecution case is that on 01.09.2024 at about 14.20 hours when the defacto complainant Police proceeding from Kovilpatti to Ettyapuram Road nearer to Kaliamman temple, the accused persons without any permission formed unlawful assembly and blocked the road and protested for the death of one Masilamani, who died while he was under employment at Rathnagiri online matchbox company and thereby, they blocked the road for more than 45 minutes. Therefore, the respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No.408 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of BNS.3.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.2317 of 2025first respondent registered a false case against the petitioners in Crime No. 408 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of BNS. In fact the petitioners are innocents and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners demanded their rights from the said Company to ensure safety measures to the workers and to pay appropriate relief to the deceased family and there is no complaint lodged by any general public and there is no disturbance caused to the public and there are no ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of BNS. Even as per the contents of the FIR, there are vague allegations and no any specific ingredients to attract the provisions of under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) BNS Therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police would submit that on 01.09.2024, these petitioners have gathered in the public road and protested road roko by blocking the road for more than 45 minutes and they protested for the death of one Masilamani, who died in the said matchbox company. Therefore, the respondent registered a case in Crime No. 408 of 2024 for the offences under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of BNS and thereafter, the case is now under investigation. 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.2317 of 2025At this stage, this petition is liable to be dismissed.5.This Court heard both sides and perused the records.6.In this case all the petitioners have been arrayed as accused for the offence under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of BNS. According to the petitioners, they have protested in a peaceful manner and have not caused any hindrance to anybody and they only demanded to ensure the safety measures for the workers in the said matchbox company. Therefore, there are no ingredients to attract the offence under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of BNS. 7.This Court also perused the records. On perusal of the FIR it is revealed that these petitioners blocked the road for 45 minutes by protesting for the death of said Masilamani, who died in the matchbox company. There is no any complaint given by the public and no any material to show that these petitioners blocked the road and there are no ingredients to constitute the offence as against the petitioners. 8.This Court also in the earlier occasions quashed so many 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.2317 of 2025complaints lodged for these type of cases, where the general public demanding their rights in a peaceful manner. Therefore, in order to attract the provisions under Sections 189(2) and 126(2) of BNS, there is no any material even as per the FIR. 10. On careful perusal of the the judgments rendered in the case of Jeevanantham and others .vs. The Inspector of Police,Velayuthapuram Police Station, Karur District and another reported in 2018-22 L.W.(Crl.)606 and in the case of K.Sathaiya and others .vs. The Inspector of Police, Arimalam Police Station, Pudukottai District in Crl.O.P(MD) No.75 of 2025, it is clear that when the assembly of persons were expressing dissatisfaction on the governance and claiming for minimum rights that are guaranteed to an ordinary citizen and if such an assembly of persons are to be trifled by registering an FIR under Section 143 of IPC and now equivalent to Section 189(2) of BNS 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.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.2317 of 202511. In the case on hand the petitioners agitated to improve the safety measures in the said Company and to settle the compensation to the deceased family and no any complaint was lodged by any public and no any public movement was curtailed. To attract the offence under Section 189(2) of BNS there is no any mention that these petitioners formed unlawful assembly with a common intention to resist the execution of any law or of any legal progress. Further the said dharna did not cause any public nuisance to anybody. More over there is no unlawful assembly to do the illegal act with common intention. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the pending First Information Report is liable to be quashed.12.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.13.03.2025Internet:YesIndex :Yes/NoNCC:Yes/NoLR7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.2317 of 2025To1. The State of Tamil Nadu,Rep by the Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti East Police Station, Thoothukudi District. Crime No. 408/2024.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.2317 of 2025P. DHANABAL, J.LR Crl.O.P(MD)No.2317 of 202513.03.20259/9