Allowed¶50

Balasubramaniyan v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC11 Sept 2025CRL OP(MD)/14470/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR under Section 528 BNSS; protest without permission against atrocities on Scheduled Castes; unlawful assembly — Section 189(2) BNS / Section 143 IPC; public mischief and incitement — Sections 353, 353(1)(c) BNS / Sections 505, 505(1)(c) IPC; public nuisance — Section 292 BNS / Section 290 IPC; wrongful restraint — Section 126(2) BNS / Section 341 IPC; vague FIR allegations; peaceful protest assembly not an unlawful assembly; Jeevanandham v. State, 2018 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 606 followed; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Crime No.247 of 2025; Virudhunagar West Police Station; FIR quashed, petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was allowed and the FIR in Crime No.247 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police, registered against the petitioners/A1 to A8, was quashed. ¶50

Balasubramaniyan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The Criminal Original Petition was allowed and the FIR in Crime No.247 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police, registered against the petitioners/A1 to A8, was quashed.

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the allegations in the FIR attract the offences under Sections 353 and 353(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (public mischief / incitement of one class against another) [Sections 505 and 505(1)(c) IPC]. +2 more

¶39

Court's answer

The offences under Sections 353 and 353(1)(c) of the BNS, 2023 [Sections 505 and 505(1)(c) IPC] are not made out: the FIR contains no allegation that any particular speech or action of the petitioners was intended to cause public mischief or to incite any class of persons to commit an offence against another class of persons, and the FIR cannot be sustained on such vague allegations.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

Following Jeevanandham and others v. State (2018 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 606), an assembly or meeting convened for the purpose of protest does not amount to an unlawful assembly; on the material in this FIR there is nothing to suggest the assembly was unlawful, so the offence under Section 189(2) of the BNS, 2023 [Section 143 IPC] is not made out.

¶41

Key takeaways

There is nothing to indicate that the petitioners intended to cause public nuisance or wrongful restraint; hence the offences under Sections 292 and 126(2) of the BNS, 2023 [Sections 290 and 341 IPC] are not made out.ratio¶42
For the aforesaid reasons, the Court held that the impugned FIR cannot be sustained, and accordingly quashed it.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench (Sunder Mohan, J.), while allowing a criminal original petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, quashed the FIR in Crime No.247 of 2025 (Virudhunagar West Police Station) registered against eight persons who had protested against alleged atrocities on members of the Scheduled Castes without obtaining permission from the authorities. Held: (i) the FIR contained no allegation that any particular speech or action of the petitioners was intended to cause public mischief or to incite any class of persons to commit an offence against another class, and the FIR could not be sustained on such vague allegations — offences under Sections 353 and 353(1)(c) BNS [Sections 505 and 505(1)(c) IPC] not made out; (ii) following Jeevanandham and others v. State, 2018 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 606, an assembly or meeting convened for the purpose of protest would not amount to an unlawful assembly, and there was no material suggesting the assembly was unlawful — Section 189(2) BNS [Section 143 IPC] not attracted; (iii) nothing indicated an intention to cause public nuisance or wrongful restraint — offences under Sections 292 and 126(2) BNS [Sections 290 and 341 IPC] not made out.

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14470 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14470 of 2025

¶7

1.Balasubramaniyan

¶8

2.Pandeeswaran

¶9

3.Suresh Kumar

¶10

4.Lakshmi

¶11

5.Murugan

¶12

6.Oorkavalan

¶13

7.Nalluthevan @ Deva

¶14

8.Chellakannu ... Petitioners

¶15

Vs.

¶16

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar West Police Station, Virudhunagar District. In Crime No.28 of 2025

¶17

2.Mr.Pandiyarajan

¶18

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruthangal West Police Station, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶19

____________ Page No. 1 of 6_

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14470 of 2025

¶22

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for the records in the case in Crime No.247 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same as illegal and violation of law as against the petitioners/A1 to A8.

¶23

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Jothi Basu For R1 : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶24

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.247 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police, registered against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 292, 352, and 353(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [corresponding to Sections 143, 290, 341, 505, and 505(1)(c) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860].

¶27

The allegation against the petitioners in the FIR is that they had

¶28

protested against the atrocities allegedly committed against the members of the Scheduled Caste communities without obtaining permission from

¶29

Page No. 2 of 6

¶30

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

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14470 of 2025

¶32

the authorities concerned, and that the protest was conducted in a manner likely to cause fear among the general public and to promote enmity between persons belonging to different castes.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations in the FIR are very vague; that there is nothing in the FIR to suggest that the protest by the petitioners would attract the offences of public mischief, wrongful restraint, or incitement of any person of a community to commit an offence against any other class of community; that the offence under Section 189(2) of the BNS (corresponding to Section 143 of the IPC) would not be made out, as a peaceful assembly for protest cannot be termed as an unlawful assembly; and that no public nuisance was committed.

¶34

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent, per contra, would submit that there are two previous cases against the first petitioner; and that the allegations in the FIR would attract the offences alleged against the petitioners.

¶35

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶36

Page No. 3 of 6

¶37

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

¶38

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14470 of 2025

¶39

there is no allegation in the FIR to the effect that any particular speech or action of the petitioners was intended to cause public mischief or intended to incite any class of persons to commit any offence against another class of persons. The FIR cannot be sustained on the basis of such vague allegations. Hence, the offences under Sections 353 and 353(1)(c) of the BNS, 2023 [corresponding to Sections 505 and 505(1)(c) of the IPC] would not be made out.

¶40

In similar case in Jeevanandham and others v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District

¶41

and another , reported in 2018 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 606 , this Court held that any assembly or meeting convened for the purpose of protest would not amount to an unlawful assembly. In the present case, there is no material to suggest that the assembly was unlawful. Hence, the offence under Section 189(2) of the BNS, 2023 [corresponding to Section 143 of the IPC] would not be made out.

¶42

There is nothing to indicate that the petitioners intended to cause public nuisance or wrongful restraint. Hence, the offences under Section 292 of the BNS, 2023 [corresponding to Section 290 of the IPC] and

¶43

Page No. 4 of 6

¶44

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

¶45

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14470 of 2025

¶46

Section 126(2) of the BNS, 2023 [corresponding to Section 341 of the

¶47

IPC] would not be made out.

¶48