Allowed

Sasikala v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC29 Mar 2021CRL OP(MD)/4732/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an FIR filed against petitioners accused of public nuisance and obstructing traffic during a protest. The Court held that no violent incident occurred and since protest is a constitutional right (absent property damage or life endangerment), the proceedings were disproportionate and the FIR was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report in Crime No.227 of 2021 was quashed as against the petitioners, and the Criminal Original Petition was allowed.

Sasikala Vs The Sub Inspector of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4732 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 29.03.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4732 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.2679 of 2021

¶7

1.Sasikala 2.T.Selvaraj (incorrectly mentioned in the FIR as selva)

¶8

3.K.Rajeswari 4.M.Chellam

¶9

5.G.Balamurugan

¶10

6.R.Latha 7.J.Jeyarani 8.M.Jenni 9.P.Yamuna 10.Danya 11.J.Elisapath Rani 12.V.Banumathi 13.M.Karthik 14.A.Pavel Sindhan -(incorrectly mentioned in the FIR as shavalsidthan) 15.S.Bala @ Balavelan 16.S.Saranraj (incorrectly mentioned in the FIR as saran) 17.C.Manikandan 18.P.Balasingam 19.M.Rajendran 20.A.Naveenkumar 21.G.Gowtham (incorrectly mentioned in the FIR as Howtham) ...Petitioners 1 to 21/Accused 1 to 21 22.S.Chandrabose 23.S.Velthevar 24.A.Meenakshi Sundaram (incorrectly mentioned in the FIR as Meenachi Sundaram) 25.A.Bony Face (incorrectly mentioned in the FIR as Ponibesh) 26.CV.Chandru (incorrectly mentioned in the FIR as Chanthuru) 27.M.Dilipan (incorrectly mentioned in the FIR as Dhiliphan) ... Petitioners 22 to 27/Accused 23 to 28)

¶11

Vs. 1.The State through The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai District. ... 1^st Respondent/Complainant (Crime No.227 of 2021)

¶12

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

¶13

1/3

¶14

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4732 of 2021

¶15

2.G.Pulikutti Ayyanar ... 2^nd Respondent/Defacto Complainant

¶16

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.227 of 2021 dated 05.03.2021 on the file of the first respondent police for offences under Section 151 Cr.P.C. and 352 of IPC and quash the same as against the petitioners.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Pandi Dorai

¶18

For 1st Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson

¶19

Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.227 of 2021 of Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai District.

¶22

2.A perusal of the First Information Report shows that on 05.03.2021 at about 11.25 a.m., when the Sub-Inspector of Police (1^st respondent), Thallakulam Police Station, along with his men was on escort duty at the Collector's Office, they found the petitioners along with others protesting for arrest and Departmental action against Mr.Rajesh Das (Indian Police Service), for outraging the modesty of his colleague (Indian Police Service Officer) and also for taking into custody of one English Teacher at Velli Veethiyar Corporation Girls Higher Secondary School by name Mr.Vijay and raised slogans. According to the complainant, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station, the petitioners and others by their act had not only committed public nuisance, but also caused hindrance to the free flow of vehicular traffic on the road.

¶23

3.Mr.A.Robinson, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), who accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent, on instructions, would contend that the investigation in Crime No.227 of 2021 of Natham Police Station, is pending.

¶24

4.It is to be pointed out that no untoward incident had taken place. The petitioners have organized the protest and the First Information Report does not disclose any act of violence. Moreover, a protest is a constitutional right as long as it does not destroy property or endanger life.

¶25

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

¶26

2/3

¶27

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4732 of 2021

¶28

5.In the circumstances, the First Information Report in Crime No.227 of 202 on the file of the first respondent, is quashed as against the petitioners and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶31

¶32

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.J.PANDI DORAI, Advocate ( SR-14506[F] dated 30/03/2021 ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4732 of 2021 29.03.2021 rmk nsv (24.04.2021) 3P 4C

¶34

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

¶35

3/3

Sasikala v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasikala v. The Sub Inspector of Police

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

S.E.Ghose Mohamed Vs the Superintendent of Poice

D.Murugesan Vs The Inspector of Police

Siva Vs The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer

Palanisamy Vs The Inspector of Police

Panjaaram Vs The Executive Magistrate

Jeeva Vs The Inspector of Police