Namburajan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Jetty
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.1455 & 1458 of 2026 1.Namburajan 2.Ramamoorthy 3.Meganathan @ Meganathapandian 4.Narayanan @ Narayanamoorthy 5.Karthick 6.Muneeswaran 7.Kalanjiyam 8.Balamurugan 9.Marimuthu 10.Veerasoundararajan 11.Palanimurugan 12.Sakthivel ... Petitioners/A1-4, 6, 8-11, 16-18 Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by the Inspector of Police, Jetty Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.19/2025) ... Respondent/Complainant 2.Patturaja ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant 1/8
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the impugned charge sheet dated 17.03.2025 in S.T.C.No.535 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Rameswaram and quash the same in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Sasikumar For R1 : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
Seeking quashment of the Final Report in S.T.C.No.535 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Rameswaram, this criminal original petition is filed.
2. Since no adverse order is passed against the 2nd respondent, notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with.
3. The prosecution case is that on 08.03.2025 at about 5.00 p.m., while the defacto complainant and other police personnel were on patrol duty at NSK Road, Rameshwaram 6th Line, they found that the 2/8
petitioners, belonging to Hindu Munnani, had conducted an unauthorized protest using a microphone, condemning the arrest of their District Secretary, thereby causing public disturbance. Hence, F.I.R in Crime No.19 of 2025 was registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 189(2) and 292 BNS, 2023 corresponding to Sections 143 and 290 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, a final report was filed before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Rameswaram and the same was taken on file as S.T.C. No.535 of 2025 for the above said offences.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the impugned Final Report suffers from fundamental illegality and does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. The petitioners submit that the alleged protest was conducted peacefully and that peaceful expression of opinion is a constitutionally guaranteed right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It is their case that expressing one's views in a democratic nation cannot be criminalised unless the act satisfies the ingredients of a penal provision. 3/8
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Final Report does not contain any specific overt act attributable to the petitioners. The Final Report does not whisper any material to show that the petitioners indulged in violence, caused disturbance, annoyance or obstruction to any public authority or to the general public.
6. It is further argued that the allegations in the Final Report are vague, sweeping and intended only to portray a peaceful assembly as illegal. Criminal law cannot be invoked to curtail peaceful expression, which is the bedrock of democratic governance.
7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners had assembled without permission, blocked a public road, and caused inconvenience, and therefore, the prosecution is justified. It was contended that the truthfulness of the allegations can be tested only during trial.
8. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.
4/8
9. Section 143 IPC requires a prima facie indication that the person was a member of an "unlawful assembly" as defined, i.e., an assembly with a common object falling within Section 141 IPC. In a protest-related FIR, merely stating that a group assembled, without particulars of common object vis-à-vis each accused, and without any material indicating participation beyond presence, is insufficient to fasten criminality on an individual.
10. Section 290 IPC relates to punishment for public nuisance where the nuisance is established. Even to proceed, there must be foundational allegations describing the nuisance and the petitioners' role in causing it. Such foundational particulars are absent as against the petitioners.
11. Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and expression, and the right to peaceful assembly without arms. These rights can be restricted only by reasonable restrictions provided by law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has 5/8
consistently held that peaceful protest is a recognized democratic right, and criminal prosecution cannot be launched unless the alleged act squarely falls within the ingredients of a penal offence.
12. The ingredients of Sections 143 and 290 IPC are not made out in the Final Report. Criminal law cannot be invoked on vague and omnibus allegations, particularly when the allegations seek to criminalise peaceful expression. The present Final Report appears to have been registered mechanically and without application of mind.
13. In view of the authoritative pronouncements cited by the petitioners, and considering the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the continuation of the investigation against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law.
14. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 (corresponding provision of Section 528 of BNSS) to secure the ends of justice. 6/8
15. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The Final Report in S.T.C.No.535 of 2025 on the file of the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Rameswaram is quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
27.01.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No gbg To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Rameswaram.
2.The Inspector of Police, Jetty Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
gbg 27.01.2026 8/8