Ramasamy v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.03.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P. No.16594 & 16595 of 2019 Ramasamy ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Jedarpalayam Police Station, Namakkal District.

(Crime No.74 of 2016)

2. Murugesan ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records in S.T.C.No.1069 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi and Quash the same.

1/7

For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondents : Mr.S.Balaji,Government Advocate Crl. Side.

: No Appearance [ R.2]

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to quash the final report filed for the offences under Sections 341 and 188 IPC made in S.T.C.No.1069 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Paramathi.

2. It is alleged in the final report that on 04.05.2016 at about 5.30 p.m, the petitioner herein with all the other accused without prior notice had protested near Marapalayam Pudhur Bus Stand and obstructed the traffic near the said place.

2/7

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent/ police has no jurisdiction to file a final report under Section 188 IPC in view of the bar under Section 195 (1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code. As per the provisions of Section 195 (1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C, no Court shall take cognizance of offence under Section 188 IPC, unless the complaint is lodged by the Public Servant concerned. In the instant case, no such complaint was lodged and hence order taking cognizance under Section 188 IPC is erroneous.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner had conducted a peaceful protest and such a protest cannot be deemed to be an offence of wrongful restraint within the meaning of Section 341 IPC. The learned counsel further submitted that in similar cases this Court had quashed the charge sheet i.e; in the case of Jeevanandham and others vs. State reported in 2018 SCC online Mad 13698 : (2018) 2 LW (Cri) 606 and decided on 20.09.2018 and in the case of Payas Agamadhu and Ors. Vs. State reported in MANU/TN/3992/2020 decided on 28.07.2020.

3/7

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly concedes that in similar cases this Court had quashed the final report of this nature.

6. This Court on perusal of the impugned final report finds that the petitioner had conducted a peaceful protest near a bus stand, aggrieved by an attack made on certain villagers.

7. As regards the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, the first 1st respondent / police has no jurisdiction to lay a final report for the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code in view of the bar under Section 195 (1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code. As per the Section 195 (1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code, only a public servant can maintain a complaint and no Court shall take cognizance in the absence of the complaint filed by the said public servant. Hence, the cognizance taken on the basis of final report by the police is erroneous and contrary to the aforesaid provisions.

8. This Court in Jeevanandham and others vs. State reported in 2018 SCC online Mad 13698 : (2018) 2 LW (Cri) 606 decided on 4/7

20.09.2018 and in a number of other cases following the said judgement including Payas Agamadhu and Ors. Vs. State reported in MANU/TN/3992/2020 decided on 28.07.2020 held that the respondent police has no jurisdiction to register an FIR and to file a final report under Section 188 IPC.

9. As regards the offence under Section 341 IPC, this Court in Jeevanandham and others vs. State cited above had held that right to protest peacefully cannot be stifled by such prosecutions. Further, in the instant case, this Court finds there are no allegations to suggest that the petitioner has committed offence under Section 341 IPC.

10. For the above reasons, the act of the petitioner in protesting does not attract any of the offences alleged and hence, the charge sheet S.T.C.No.1069 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi is quashed.

5/7

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 09.03.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No shr To

1. The Inspector of Police, Jedarpalayam Police Station, Namakkal District.

2. Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi.

6/7

SUNDER MOHAN. J, shr and Crl.M.P. Nos.16594 & 16595 of 2019 09.03.2023 7/7