Allowed

Sarjeeth v. the State Rep by

Madras HC14 Mar 2022CRL OP/5641/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a criminal appeal petition seeking to quash Summary Trial Case No.5444 of 2021. The court set aside proceedings for protesting during the pandemic without intent to spread disease, citing lack of material for virus spread and the nature of agricultural protests.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in S.T.C.No.5444 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore, is liable to be quashed and the same is quashed.

Sarjeeth Vs the State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.5641 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.3120 of 2022

¶6

1.Sarjeeth

¶7

2.Balasubramaniyan

¶8

3.Gajendren

¶9

4.Shobana

¶10

5.Kuselan

¶11

6.Raja ... Petitioners/A1 to A6

¶12

¶13

1.The State rep by

¶14

The Inspector of Police, C2 Race Course Police Station,

¶15

Law and Order,

¶16

Coimbatore. (Crime No.138 of 2021)

¶17

2.Boopathi.G

¶18

The Special Sub Inspector of Police, C2 Race Course Police Station, Law and Order, Coimbatore. ... Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records pertaining to STC.No.5444 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore and quash the same.

¶20

For Petitioner : Dr.S.Manoharan

¶21

For Respondents: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 No appearance for R2

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to STC.No.5444 of 2021 on the

¶24

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

¶25

file of the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore and quash the same.

¶26

2.The case of the petitioners is that on 19.02.2021 at about 11.50 hours, the accused without following Covid protocol and regulations, protested in a unlawful manner against the new formulas brought in by the Central Government.

¶27

3.Based on the complaint of the respondent, a case in Crime No.138 of 2021 was registered for offences under Sections 143 and 269 IPC. The respondents, after completion of the investigation, filed a final report against the petitioners in S.T.C.No.5444 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore for offences under Sections 143 and 269 of IPC.

¶28

4.This petition is filed mainly on the ground that as far as Sections 143 and 269 IPC are concerned, the petitioners are citizens of India, who conducted a demonstration in a democratic manner and there is no intention on the part of the petitioners to spread the disease to others.

¶29

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the entire materials available on record.

¶30

6.The offence under Sections 269 and 143 IPC are concerned, as per the contents of the First Information Report, it is seen that the petitioners protested in an unlawful manner and shouted slogans during the pandemic period. It is a trivial matter in which no offence of grievous nature is involved. Even though Section 144 Cr.P.C order was in force, during the relevant time the respondent police ought to have warned the petitioners to go in-door, instead of that, they filed a case. It is also not the case of the respondent that at the time of the incident, the petitioners were affected by Covid-19. So the contention that conducting protest during the pandemic period will spread the disease is without any basis. Section 143 IPC is concerned, it specifies the period of punishment for a person who is a member of an unlawful assembly.

¶31

Section 141 IPC defines unlawful assembly as under:

¶32

Unlawful assembly —

¶33

An assembly of five or more persons is designated

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

"unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is

¶37

First To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal

¶38

force, 1the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or

¶39

Second To resist the execution of any law, or of any legalprocess; or

¶40

Third To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or Fourth By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or Fifth By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

¶41

7.In the light of the above definition when we look into the final report, we can easily say that it cannot be termed as unlawful assembly. Similarly for attracting offences under Sections 143 and 269 IPC also, there are no materials to show that the petitioners were also affected by Covid-19 virus and because of their assembly virus spread to others. Since in the absence of any such materials on record, the offence under Sections 143 and 269 IPC are not attracted.

¶42

8.Considering the nature of allegations and the offences involved in this case, this Court is of the considered view that protesting for agricultural farmers should not be a reason for spoiling the future of the petitioners. Unintended casual act should not take away the future of the petitioners. More over, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Government is also going to drop all these cases, which have been registered

¶43

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

¶44

during the pandemic period against the public. Taking all these aspects into account, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings in S.T.C.No.5444 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore, is liable to be quashed and the same is quashed.

¶45

9.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

SD/-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶50

vkr

¶51

¶52

1.The Judicial Magistrate-III, Coimbatore.

¶53

2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.

¶54

3.The Inspector of Police, C2 Race Course Police Station, Law and Order, Coimbatore.

¶55

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶56

+1cc to M/s.S.Manoharan, Advocate Sr.17237

¶57

Crl.O.P.No.5641 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.3120 of 2022

¶58

pmk[co] srg 28/03/2022

¶59

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

Sarjeeth v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarjeeth v. the 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

M.Manikandan Vs State Rep.by

S.R.Parthipan (51) Vs the District Public Prosecutor

C.Prabhakaran Vs the Superintendent of Police

Inbaraj Vs Alagiri

Vishal Vs the State Represented by

S.Mohammed Ibrahim Vs the State Rep by