Allowed

L.C.Thirumalai v. State Rep. by

Madras HC27 Apr 2023CRL OP/3681/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings regarding an FIR lodged against college staff members protesting outside premises. It held that protests do not constitute unlawful assembly or wrongful restraint if they caused only slight harm, and allowances were made upon the petitioners filing apologies.

What did the court decide?

Impugned final report in C.C.No.1232 of 2020 quashed and connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

L.C.Thirumalai Vs State Rep. by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.04.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.Nos.2191, 2197, 4013 & 4014 of 2021

¶7

1.L.C.Thirumalai 2,K.Sekar

¶8

3.Kachapalayam

¶9

4.R.Ponmanikandan 5.M.Meena 6.K.Mahalakshmi 7.G.Deepa 8.N.Alamelu 9.K.Sumithra 10.N.Sivakami 11.M.Mariyammal 12.R.Padmavathy 13.S.Parasakthi 14.S.Kalaiselvi 15.G.Revathi 16.A.G.Maragathamani 17.K.Prabu 18.K.Venkataramanan 19.M.Chandrasekar 20.D.Deepan Varma 21.D.Giribabu 22.K.S.Suresh Kumaran 23.R.Baskaran 24.M.Sarathkumar

¶10

...Petitioners / Accused 1 to 3, 18 to 22 and 24 to 39 (in Crl.O.P.No.3681 of 2021)

¶11

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

¶12

1/8

¶13

Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021

¶14

1.T.Sivanesan 2.A.Saravanakumar 3.R.Gunaseelan 4.M.Elamvaluthi 5.V.Sivamurugan 6.P.Elangovan 7.M.Thangaraju 8.P.C.Sathyanarayanan 9.M.Thirumalai 10.L.B.Sujatha 11.H.Thilagam 12.B.Mahalakshmi 13.R.Kungumapriya 14.T.G.Sunitha

¶15

... Petitioners / Accused 4 to 8, 10 to 17 and 23 (in Crl.O.P.No.6099 of 2021) -Vs1.The State rep. by: The Inspector of Police, G-3 Police Station, Kilpauk, Chennai – 10. (Crime No.124 of 2019) ... 1^st Respondent / Complainant 2.Interim Administrator, Pachaiyappa's Trust, No.113, Harington Road, Chennai – 600 030. (Now he removed by judgment in O.S.A.No.60, 61, 62 of 2020 dated 23.12.2020

¶16

... 2^nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant (in both Crl.O.Ps)

¶17

Prayer: Criminal Original petitions filed under Section 482 of Code of

¶18

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

¶19

2/8

¶20

Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021

¶21

Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in C.C.No.1232 of 2020 on the file of the 1^st respondent and to quash the same.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Murugendran (in Crl.O.P.No.3681 of 2021) For Petitioners : Mr.C.Vijayakumar (in Crl.O.P.No.6099 of 2021) For R1 : Mr.A.Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor. (in both Crl.O.Ps) For R2 : Mr.C.S.S.Pillai (in both Crl.O.Ps)

¶23

ORDER

¶24

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to quash

¶25

the proceedings in C.C.No.1232 of 2020 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate – II, Egmore, Chennai, filed for the alleged offence under Sections 143, 147, 448, 341, 342 r/w 149 IPC.

¶26

It is alleged in the final report that on 11.04.2019,

¶27

the petitioners, some of whom are professors and others staff members of Pachaiyappa's College protested outside the college premises and formed

¶28

themselves into an unlawful assembly and prevented the other staff

¶29

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

¶30

3/8

¶31

Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021

¶32

members from entering the college premises. It is alleged that the 3^rd petitioner / A3 had unlawfully locked the grill gate of the premises. The complaint was lodged by the Administrator of the Pachaiyappa's Trust, appointed by this Court, who is a retired Judge of this Court. The learned Judge had given the complaint stating that he apprehended that the petitioners would prevent the holding of the College Committee Meeting on 15.04.2019 and that the petitioners had indulged in all forms of protest by shouting and abusing the other officials of the Trust in front of the office. Hence, the complaint.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had protested in a peaceful manner. The protest is sought to be projected as unlawful assembly. They are all employed in Pachaiyappa's College, and therefore, the offence of trespass is not made out. Hence, he prayed for the quashing of the final report.

¶34

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent vehemently opposed

¶35

the quashing of the impugned final report and submitted that there are allegations in the impugned final report and supporting materials to establish the offences. Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the quash https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8

¶36

Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021

¶37

petition.

¶38

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing of the 1^st respondent reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶39

This Court finds that the FIR, which culminated in the impugned final report, was lodged seeking protection for conducting the meeting on 15.04.2019. Based on the complaint given by the learned Judge, police protection was given and it is reported that the meeting was held on 15.04.2019. The allegations would suggest that the petitioners had protested outside the college premises. An assembly of persons for the purpose of protest cannot be termed as unlawful assembly. Hence, the offences under Sections 143 and 147 IPC are not made out. As regards wrongful restraint, the allegation is that they had prevented the entry of other staff members to the college. This Court in Jeevanandham and others vs. State reported in 2018 SCC online Mad 13698 : (2018) 2 LW (Cri) 606 had held that merely because some hindrance is caused to the movement of certain persons for some time due

¶40

to a protest, the said act would not attract the offence of wrongful

¶41

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

¶42

5/8

¶43

Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021

¶44

restraint. Hence, the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code

¶45

is not made out. Admittedly, the petitioners are all employed in Pachayappa's College, and hence, their entry into the college cannot be termed as Criminal trespass. The allegation against one of the staff members is that he had closed the grill gate. Further, it is seen that on 15.04.2019, the meeting was conducted (for which protection was sought for in the FIR) without any hindrance. Even assuming that the offences are made out, the harm caused by the accused on account of their protest on 11.04.2019 is slight and would be covered by Section 95 of IPC.

¶46

That apart, it is seen that the petitioners are either professors or

¶47

staff members of Pachaiyappa's College. All of them have today filed Affidavits expressing their sincere apology for the occurrence said to have taken place on 11.04.2019 and further undertaking that they would not indulge in any activity prejudicial to the smooth functioning of the Pachaiyappa's College Trust Office in future. Since the petitioners have expressed regret for their action and filed Affidavits and also for the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the impugned final report is liable to be quashed to secure the ends of Justice. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall not be subjected to any action,

¶48

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

¶49

6/8

¶50

Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021

¶51

departmental or otherwise for filing such Affidavits before this Court.

¶52

Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned final report in C.C.No.1232 of 2020 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate – II, Egmore, Chennai. Accordingly, this Criminal Original

¶53

Petition is allowed. Connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶54

27.04.2023

¶55

smv

¶56

Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order

¶57

To,

¶58

1.The State rep. by: The Inspector of Police, G-3 Police Station, Kilpauk, Chennai – 10.

¶59

2.Interim Administrator, Pachaiyappa's Trust, No.113, Harington Road, Chennai – 600 030.

¶60

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶61

SUNDER MOHAN,J.

¶62

smv

¶63

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

¶64

7/8

¶65

Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021

¶66

Crl.O.P.Nos.3681 & 6099 of 2021

¶67

and Crl.M.P.Nos.2191, 2197, 4013 & 4014 of 2021

¶68

27.04.2023

¶69

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

¶70

8/8

L.C.Thirumalai v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.C.Thirumalai 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Victor Paul Vs the State Rep.by

K.S.Rajagopalan Vs State Rep.by

Nagai Thiruvalluvan Vs the State, Represented by

M/S.Venkateswara Hatcheries Pvt.Ltd., Vs T.Rajendran

Senthilbabu Vs State Rep.by

Tanuj Manubhai Patel Vs Sundar Lakshmi Agencies and Traders Private Limited