Allowed

Manoj, Aged 30 Years, v. State Rep. by

Madras HC14 Dec 2021CRL OP/27970/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners for bursting crackers during a religious festival. The court held that mere bursting of crackers during long-standing festivals, without evidence of violence or restraint, does not constitute an offence, and the trial is not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed, final report in C.C.No.8789 of 2017 quashed, connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Manoj, Aged 30 Years, Vs State Rep. by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 14.12.2021 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR Crl. O.P. No.27970 of 2017 and Crl. M.P.Nos.15916 and 15917 of 2017

¶3

1.Manoj Son of Sekar 2. Azhaguraj Son of Sekar 3. Balaji Son of Sekar 4. Malarkodi Wife of Sekar ....Petitioners/Accused Versus

¶4

State represented by Sub Inspector of Police D-4, JamBazaar Police Station Law and Order Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005 ....Respondent/Complainant

¶5

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C.No.8789 of 2017 on the file of learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and quash the same.

¶6

For Petitioners...Dr.G.Krishnamuthy For Respondent ...Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.side)

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.8789 of 2017 pending on the file of learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore for the offences under Sections

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

341, 143, 336, 290, 353 of IPC read with 71(A)(5)(11)(15) of City Police Act and Sections 194, 174 (iii) read with Section 177 of Motor Vehicles Act.

¶11

The crux of the allegation in the final report is that on 31.08.2017, the petitioner herein/accused on the eve of Vinayakar Chathurthi festival, while carrying the idol of Vinayakar for immersing the same in the sea, they burst crackers endangering the life of public and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶12

The law was set in motion based on the special report said to have been given by the Constable on duty and three witnesses were examined by the Investigating Officer. Apart from the allegation of bursting crackers, no other serious allegations have been made. Therefore, when religious festivals are being regularly conducted, the prosecution said to have been initiated against the petitioners for forming unlawful assembly is not maintainable as there was no intention of causing any offence. Nowhere in the statement recorded by the prosecution it has been mentioned that any of the persons were voluntarily restrained or confined.

¶13

Therefore, when religious festivals are being celebrated, which is in vogue for many years without causing any disturbance or damage to any public property, the prosecution cannot be allowed to continue for mere bursting of crackers. This Court is of the view that for celebrating the religious festivals, the persons cannot be forced to undergo the ordeal of trial. If the entire material is taken at its face value, the same do not constitute any offence and hence, the final report is liable to be quashed.

¶14

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the final report in C.C.No.8789 of 2017 on the file of learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore is quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

gpa/gba To 1. The XII Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore 2. Do Thro The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai 3. The Sub Inspector of Police D-4, JamBazaar Police Station Law and Order Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005 4. The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court Chennai. +1 CC to Dr.G.Krishnamuthy, Advocate sr 67353 Crl. O.P. No.27970 of 2017 and

¶21

Crl. M.P.Nos.15916 and 15917 of 2017

¶22

KJ(CO) SP(04/01/2022)

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Manoj, Aged 30 Years, v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj, Aged 30 Years, v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priya, F/A-36 Years Vs the State Rep.by

P.Vadivel, M/A-42 Vs State Rep. by

Selvam, Aged 32 Years, Vs State Rep. by Its

M.Josephine Vs Inspector of Police

Jayaprakash,Aged 32 Years, Vs the Inspector of Police

Mrs.Meenakshi, (F/64) Vs Mrs.a.Sivagami @ Muthusivagami