Allowed

Prabakaran v. State by

Madras HC8 Jun 2023CRL OP/9828/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a petition to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court held that a peaceful protest does not constitute unlawful assembly or wrongful restraint as the chargesheet lacked specific allegations attracting the relevant IPC offences, thus quashing the trial under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; S.T.C.No.263 of 2020 quashed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

Prabakaran Vs State by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.9828 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 08.06.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P. No. 9828 of 2021 & Crl. M.P.Nos. 6068 & 6069 of 2021

1.Prabakaran

2.Sathyaran

3.Ramraj

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.State by Inspector of Police, Barur Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

2.Iswarya

... Respondents

1/6

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

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.9828 of 2021

¶17

PRAYER:

¶18

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in connection with the S.T.C.No.263 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli and quash the same.

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr. K.Thiruvengadam For Respondent 1 : Mr. A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners who are arrayed as A3, A6 and A9 in the final report, along with the others had protested at about 11.30 a.m., on 02.03.2020, stating that they had suspicion in the death of one Rajini and caused nuisance to the general public.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.9828 of 2021

¶26

petitioners protested peacefully and they have right to do so. The impugned final report even if accepted to be true does not attract any of the offences alleged. The petitioners did not form any unlawful assembly or obstructed, assaulted or used criminal force on any public servant. There is nothing in the impugned charge sheet to show that the petitioners had committed the offences of wrongful restraint.

¶27

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent, submitted that the petitioners had staged a protest and such protest was conducted without any valid permission. They had obstructed the traffic besides preventing the public servants from discharging their duty. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, therefore submitted that the quash petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

As regards the offence under Section 143 of the Indian Penal

¶29

Code, it is seen that the charge sheet does not state as to how the protest by the petitioners attracted the offence of unlawful assembly. A

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.9828 of 2021

¶33

mere protest by a group of people would not amount to unlawful assembly. There is no allegation in the charge sheet for the offence under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the allegations do not constitute the offence of unlawful assembly as stated, the offence under Section 149 I.P.C., would not be made out.

¶34

As regards the offence under Section 341 I.P.C., this Court in similar circumstances held that in Jeevanandham and others vs. State reported in 2018 SCC online Mad 13698 : (2018) 2 LW (Cri) 606 that merely because an hindrance is caused to the movement of general public for sometime due to a protest, the said act would not attract an offence of wrongful restrain. Hence, the offence under Section 341 I.P.C., is not made out.

¶35

For the above reasons, the act of the petitioners in protesting does not attract any of the offences alleged and hence, S.T.C.No.263 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif - cum – Judicial Magistrate I, Pochampalli, is quashed.

¶36

4/6

¶37

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

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.9828 of 2021

¶39

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶40

08.06.2023

¶41

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No

¶42

kan

¶43

¶44

1.The District Munsif - cum – Judicial Magistrate I, Pochampalli.

¶45

5/6

¶46

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

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.9828 of 2021

¶48

SUNDER MOHAN. J,

¶49

kan

¶50

Crl.O.P.No. 9828 of 2021

¶51

08.06.2023

¶52

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

Prabakaran v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabakaran v. State 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

Heerchand Surana Vs the Union Territory of Puducherry

Chainsingh Vs State Rep by

M.Ganga Nivethita Vs the State by

Maheswari Vs Special Sub Inspector of Police

Rajkumar Vs the State Rep.by

Selvaraj Vs State Rep.by