A.Abdul Sathik @ Sathik v. The State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.03.2022 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL.O.P.NO.7027 OF 2022 AND CRL.M.P.NO.3978 OF 2022
1. A.Abdul Sathik @ Sathik
2. Navaskhan ... Petitioners/A1 and A5 Vs.
The State Rep. by., The Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station, Nagapattinam District.
(Crime No.: 145/2020) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records FIR in Crime No.145 of 2020 dated 13.03.2020 on the file of the Respondent Police and quash the same as against the petitioners.
For Petitioners :
Mr.K.Ezhumalai For Respondent :
Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor.
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records FIR in Crime No.145 of 2020 dated 13.03.2020 on the file of the Respondent Police and quash the same as against the petitioners.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the respondent/ complainant is that on 13.03.2020, when promulgatory orders under Section 144 of Cr.P.C.was in force, the named accused who belongs to Muslim organisation along with others without following the regulatory orders of Covid-19 protocol formed into an unlawful assembly without any prior permission and protested
against the CAA, NRC, NPR Act and also against the arrest of Muslims, who participated in the protest in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh and thereby caused obstruction in public way restraining the movement of public. Based on the complaint, a case in Crime No.145 of 2020 was registered for the offences under Sections 341, 143, 283 of IPC. The present application has been filed by the petitioners to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.145 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners and other accused are citizens of this Country and the Constitution of this Country guarantees its citizens the freedom of speech and expression, assemble peacefully and without arms and to form Associations and to move freely throughout the Territory of India.
The petitioners have peacefully assembled and demonstrated without causing any disturbance and they have not involved in any act of violence and even as per the version of the prosecution no untoward incident had happened. He further submitted that this Court in similar matters where demonstrations were made against the policies of the Government had in Crl.OP(MD).No.12438 of 2020 dated 05.11.2020 and Crl.OP(MD).No.4609 of 2021 dated 25.03.2021, had quashed the proceedings thereunder. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that this Court in those cases found that no offences were made out against the accused therein and had quashed the entire proceedings in respect of all the accused.
(i)Crl.O.P(MD) No.12438 of 2020 dated 05.11.2020, which reads as follows:- "5.Though, there are prima facie materials to justify the registration of the First Information Report, I am of the view that its continuance is not warranted. This is because no untoward incident had taken place. The country had witnessed protests all over by different sections of people against the said amendments. Since the protest was peaceful and even the First Information Report does not disclose any act of violence or happening of untoward incident, I am of the view that the continued prosecution is not warranted. Quashing the same will secure the ends of justice."
(ii) In Crl.O.P.No.4609 of 2021 dated 25.03.2021, which reads as follows:
"4.It is to be pointed out that no untoward incident had taken place. The petitioner has organized the protest and the First Information Report has not disclosed any act of violence. It must be unequivocally emphasized that the Constitution of India gives its Citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression, assemble peacefully and without arms, to form Association and Unions and to move freely throughout the Territory of India under Article 19(1) (a), (b), © and (d) of the Constitution of India. But the course these rights come with terms and conditions. In the instant case, the protest was peaceful and as already observed no untoward incident took place."
4. The offence under Section 341 IPC are concerned, as per the contents of the First Information Report, it is seen that the petitioners protested in an unlawful manner during the pandemic period. No act of violence or untoward incident is reported. Further, no complaint has been made by public with regard to obstruction of public way. 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. Section 143 IPC is concerned, it specifies the period of punishment for a person who is a member of an unlawful assembly.
5. Section 141 IPC defines unlawful assembly as under:
141. Unlawful assembly An assembly of five or more persons is designated an ''unlawful assembly'' if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is First To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the 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 Second To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or 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.
6. In the view of the above definition scanning through the FIR, it cannot be termed as an unlawful assembly. Similarly for attracting offences under Section 341 IPC, there should be material to show that the petitioners have wrongfully restrained anybody. In this case, no public has made complaint against the petitioners and further there is no material to show that the traffic was paralysed that they caused danger or obstruction of public way
7. Considering the nature of allegations and the offences involved in this case, this Court is of the opinion that protesting for the welfare of the public should not be held to be a reason for spoiling the future of the petitioners. Unintended casual act, without any act of violence, should not take away the future of the petitioners. Moreover, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Government has also intended to drop all these cases, which have been registered during the pandemic period against the public. Taking all these aspects into account, this Court is of the considered view that keeping the First Information Report in Crime No.145 of 2020 on the file of the respondent as against the other remaining accused is also an abuse of process of law.
8. In view of the above, the First Information Report in Crime No.145 of 2020 on the file of the respondent stands quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar nr/nti
To
1. The Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station, Nagapattinam District.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+2ccs to M/s.H.Thameen Ansari, Advocate, S.R.No.21406 Crl.O.P.No.7027 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.3978 of 2022 GPL(CO) RLP(29/04/2022)