Allowed

Sanaullah v. the State Rep.by Its

Madras HC18 Oct 2022CRL OP/1784/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench quashed a charge sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing proceedings against petitioners protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act. The court allowed the petition and closed connected petitions based on a Government Order directing withdrawal of such cases.

What did the court decide?

Charge sheet in C.C.No.72 of 2020 and proceedings quashed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Sanaullah Vs the State Rep.by Its — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.1784 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.1784 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1031 & 1033 of 2021

¶7

1.Sanaullah 2.Anwar 3.Askar Hussain 4.Jawaharulla 5.Abdul Fayaz 6.Mohammed Rafic 7.Fazil

¶8

... Petitioners Vs.

¶9

1.State Rep by: The Inspector of Police, Thirupathur Town Police Station, (FIR Cr.No.20 of 2020 dated 14.01.2020)

¶10

2.Raman ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the Final Report / Charge Sheet in C.C.No.72 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – I, Thirupathur and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Mohammed Sayeed For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran, APP for R1 No appearance for R2

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶14

Crl.O.P.No.1784 of 2021

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition has been preferred to call for the

¶17

records pertaining to the Final Report / Charge Sheet in C.C.No.72 of 2020,

¶18

on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – I, Thirupathur and quash the same.

¶19

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

¶20

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.01.2020, the petitioners protested in Public road against the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act and further demanded the Central Government to withdraw the said Citizenship Amendment Act, without getting prior permission from the authority concerned. On the said allegation, the respondent police registered the complaint and filed an FIR in Crime No.20 of 2020 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 143 and 188 of I.P.C. Subsequently, the respondent police altered the charge sheet in C.C.No.72 of 2020 filed on 30.07.2020 for the offences under Sections 341, 143, 188, 153A, 505(1)(b), 505(1)(c) of I.P.C. and the same is pending before the Judicial Magistrate – I, Thirupathur in C.C.No.72 of 2020.

¶21

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶22

Crl.O.P.No.1784 of 2021 are the social activists and they have been raising voice for the public cause

¶23

and public welfare; in order to seek attention of the Central and State Governments, the petitioners along with others had protested against the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act.

¶24

5. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned

¶25

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that the Government has issued G.O.(Ms) No.368, Home (Courts-IV) Department dated 04.09.2021, withdrawing the cases against the protestors who protested against Citizenship Amendment Act, Methane/Neutrino, Koodankulam Atomic Plant and Eight Lane Road Projects; the petitioners' case in Crime No.20 of 2020 falls under Serial No.1661 in the said Government Order for withdrawing the cases registered against Citizenship Amendment Act Protest.

¶26

6. In view of the above submission of the learned Additional Public

¶27

Prosecutor that the Government has issued the above Government Order to withdraw the case against the petitioners, I feel it is appropriate to quash the charge sheet filed against the petitioners.

¶28

7 . In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.1784 of 2021 proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.72 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – I, Thirupathur, is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index: Yes/No 18.10.2022 Speaking / Non Speaking Order gsk

¶31

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶33

Crl.O.P.No.1784 of 2021

¶34

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thirupathur.

¶35

2.The Inspector of Police, Thirupathur Town Police Station, Thirupathur.

¶36

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶37

R.N.MANJULA, J.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶39

Crl.O.P.No.1784 of 2021

¶40

gsk

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.1784 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1031 & 1033 of 2021

¶42

18.10.2022

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

Sanaullah v. the State Rep.by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanaullah v. the State Rep.by Its

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

Joseph Jesudoss Vs State by

Narottam Dharawat Vs State Rep.by

Sivakumar Vs State Rep by

Jaghankeer Basha @ Jahangir Basha Vs State Rep by

G.Yesudoss Vs State Rep.by

T.Nithesh Vs State Rep by