Allowed¶36

Dharmaraj v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC21 Jan 2025CRL OP(MD)/894/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR quashing; protest/demonstration against State Government and police; unlawful assembly S.143 IPC; nuisance S.290 IPC; Section 528 BNSS; peaceful demonstration without permission; no violence or traffic violation; Kankarai junction; Crime No.16 of 2024 Thiruvattar Police Station Kaniyakumari; Jeevanandham 2018 2 LW (Crl) 606; Sri Raja Crl.O.P.(MD) No.7922 of 2019; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; M.Nirmal Kumar, J.; quashed against all accused; Crl.M.P.(MD)No.614 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.16 of 2024 quashed against the petitioners and all other similarly placed accused; connected miscellaneous petition (Crl.M.P.(MD)No.614 of 2025) closed. ¶36

Dharmaraj Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR in Crime No.16 of 2024 quashed against the petitioners and all other similarly placed accused; connected miscellaneous petition (Crl.M.P.(MD)No.614 of 2025) closed.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Information Report in Crime No.16 of 2024, registered under Sections 143, 290 IPC on allegations of unlawful assembly and obstruction during a protest, is liable to be quashed.

¶18

Court's answer

The facts of this case are similar to the facts covered by this Court's judgments in Jeevanandham (2018 2 LW (Crl) 606) and Sri Raja (batch of cases in Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 2019), in which similar proceedings were quashed.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in Cr.No.16 of 2024 are quashed not only against the petitioners but against all other accused persons who are similarly placed; consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR — Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashment of FIR in Crime No.16 of 2024 on the file of Thiruvattar Police Station, Kaniyakumari District, registered under Sections 143, 290 IPC on the complaint of the 2nd respondent, alleging that the accused were unlawfully assembled near Kankarai junction on 16.01.2024 protesting against the performance of the State Government and police, causing obstruction to public and traffic. Petitioners contended the demonstration was peaceful, without violence or violation of traffic regulations, and relied on Jeevanandham (2018 2 LW (Crl) 606, dt. 20.09.2018) and Sri Raja (batch of cases, Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 2019, dt. 30.08.2019); the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that this Court had quashed similar proceedings on similar grounds. Holding the facts similar to the cited judgments, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in Cr.No.16 of 2024 not only against the petitioners but against all other similarly placed accused, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.894 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.01.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.894 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.614 of 2025

¶7

Dharmaraj .. Petitioners

¶8

¶9

The State of Tamilnadu The Inspector of Police, Thiruvattar Police Station, Kaniyakumari District. Crime No. 16 of 2024.

¶10

N. Muthuraj

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, To call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No. 16/2024 on the file of Respondent Police and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : M/s. Ashwini.M For Respondents : Mr. K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶14

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

¶15

1/6

¶16

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.894 of 2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.16 of 2024 on the file of the second respondent Police.

¶19

2 . The case of the prosecution is that on 16.01.2024 at about

¶20

17.00 hours while the 2^nd respondent and other police officials were in their patrol duty, at that time, they saw the accused persons were unlawfully assembled near Kankarai junction and conducted protest against the performance of the State Government and the police officials, thereby, caused obstruction to the public and traffic. Based on the complaint given by the 2^nd respondent, a case in Cr.No.16 of 2024 has been registered under Sections 143, 290 of IPC.

¶21

The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners have been primarily charged for forming unlawful assembly causing wrongful restraint and nuisance to the general public. On information,

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.894 of 2025

¶25

complaint had been lodged and there is no incident after the protest to show that the public were restrained from moving and no untoward incident happened. The case projected against the petitioners is that they had conducted protest against the performance of the State Government and the police officials. He would further submit that they conducted demonstration in the peaceful manner and they did not indulge in any violent activities had not violated the traffic regulations. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further submit that the facts of the case are exactly similar to the case covered in the decision reported in 2018 2 LW (Crl) 606 [Jeevanandham and others vs. The Inspector of Police Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District] dated 20.09.2018 and in the case of Sri Raja vs Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station Virudhunagar District and other in batch of cases in Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 2019 dated 30.08.2019.

¶26

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit

¶27

that the petitioners and others had held demonstration against the performance of the State Government and the police officials without getting any permission from the concerned officials. Hence, the case has

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.894 of 2025

¶31

been registered. He would fairly submit that this Court in similar grounds quashed the proceedings based on the citations referred by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

¶32

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and

¶33

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. Perused the materials on record.

¶34

6.The facts of this case is similar to the facts covered by the Judgment of this Court reported in 2018 2 LW (Crl) 606 [Jeevanandham and others vs. The Inspector of Police Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District] dated 20.09.2018 and in case of Sri Raja vs Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station Virudhunagar District and other in batch of cases in Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 2019 dated 30.08.2019.

¶35