C. Arockiaraj, v. The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :14.03.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3860 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.2269 of 2019 1.C.Arockiaraj 2.P.Ruskin Rayappan 3.J.Ignacimuthu Robert 4.V.Hemalatha 5.T.Jeevanjaju 6.S.Vincent 7.G.Sakthivel 8.A.Mathalai Muthu 9.R.Thamil Selvi 10.K.Karuppiah 11.P.Arumugam 12.S.Ranjith Kumar 13.L.Peter Michealraj 14.R.Thamodharan 15.Radhakrishnan 16.A.Mariadoss 17.A.P.Murugesan 18.P.Vijayalakshmi 19.M.Thomas 20.L.Arulmasilamani 21.S.Elanchzhyan 22.P.Thamil Selvam 23.A.Arokia Doss 24.D.Ethiraj 25.M.Sylvester 26.R.Vadivelu 27.V.J.Ruban Vinoth Kumar 28.V.Shanthi 29.A.William George 30.V.Vijayakumar 31.P.Rajendran 32.S.Elamparithi 33.R.Revathy 34.S.Lakshmi Sundari 35.P.I.Diraviam 36.V.Gandhimathi 37.K.Kalyani 38.K.Senthil Jeyakumar 39.A.Stephen
40.C.Muthusarogini 41.R.Medilda 42.L.Sahayaraj 43.S.Kulandairaj 44.R.Johnson Jesuraj 45.A.Thomasbaskar 46.I.Xavier Aruldoss 47.S.Xavier 48.S.Ilaya Raja 49.N.Chairman Durai 50.D.Raja 51.P.Ravi 52.K.Muthusamy 53.S.Manikkumar 54.S.Mahalingam 55.C.Raja 56.T.Ramesh 57.S.Pechiyammal 58.C.Somasundaram 59.R.Natanam 60.M.Mahendran 61.R.Kaliraj 62.P.Ramesh 63.K.Prabaharan 64.K.Albert 65.S.Shanmugapriya 66.P.Srividya 67.G.Ganga 68.P.Padma 69.P.Maheswari 70.A.Alexander Arockia Dharmaraj 71.V.Senthilkumar ... Petitioners / Accused Nos. 1 to 18, 20, 22 to 29, 31, 32, 34, 58, 60 to 76 Vs.
1.The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Cantonment Police Station, Trichy District.
(Crime No.2014 of 2018) ... Respondent / Complainant 2.Stephen Dhanaraj ... Respondent / De facto Complainant PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.2014 of 2018, dated 26.11.2018, pending on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners alone.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For R1 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate (Crl. side)
O R D E R
The present petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.2014 of 2018, dated 26.11.2018, pending on the file of the first respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent.
3. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 18, 20, 22 to 29, 31, 32, 34 to 58, 60 to 76 for the offences under Sections 143, 290 and 285 IPC, based on the complaint preferred by the second respondent.
4. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners staged protest against the Government Orders. In the course of agitation, the Government Order namely G.O.Ms.Nos.303 and 234 were alleged to have been burnt by the accused persons. Hence, the complaint has been filed by the second respondent.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on the face of the FIR, no offence is made out and for the offence under Section 285 IPC, there must be fire to endanger human life. Mere burning of a paper even though it may be a Government Order is not likely to endanger human life. There is no indication that the burning of a piece of paper endangers human life.
6. This Court in A.Santhos Yadav Vs. the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Chennai [2015 (40) CTC 317] has held as follows: "A careful reading of Section 285 would show that the mere burning of an effigy, by itself, was not made a punishable offence under the IPC. In fact, there is not even a reference in Section 285, I.P.C., to the burning of effigies. Section 285 is actually inserted in Chapter XIV of the I.P.C., which deals with offences affecting public health, safety, convenience, decency and morals. Section 285, itself is grouped along with offences dealing with negligence. The manner in which Section 285 is worded would show that doing anything with fire or any combustible matter any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, is made punishable. Therefore, acting rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life or in a manner likely to
cause hurt or injury, is a sine qua non for making an act come within the meaning of Section 285."
7. This Court is in agreement with the above said judgment. Hence, the impugned FIR in Crime No.2014 of 2018 dated 26.11.2018 pending on the file of the respondent no.1 is quashed and accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) To 1.The Inspector of Police, Cantonment Police Station, Trichy District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate SR-54679. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3860 of 2019 14.03.2019 CS: (14/06/2019) 4P 4C