T.M. Irudhyaraj Fernando v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31.08.2018

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.(MD) No.326 of 2014 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 Sebasthiyan(died) 1.T.M.Irudhyaraj Fernando 2.Julius Arulrayan 3.Thomas John Peter 4.Jesulogadoss 5.Savariyar 6.Kolkar Sebasthiyar 7.Kovilpillai Arockiyasamy 8.Saviour 9.Loordsamy Jesuraj 10.Esakki @ Esakku 11.Steephan @ Sebasthiar 12.Arokkiyasamy 13.Doss 14.Jesuraj 15.Jesurai 16.Mariyappan 17.Sebasthiyar 18.Arockiyadoss 19.Panneerselvam 20.Sebasteen 21.Manohar 22.Sebasthiyan 23.Mariya Jacob 24.Kasbar 25.Sebasthiyan 26.Anthoni 27.James 28.Jesumani 29.Savarimuthu 30.Xaviour 31.Issac 32.Devaraj 33.Santhiyagu 34.Thomaiyar 35.Joseph Sekar 36.Jeyarld Fernandes 37.Sabesvel 38.Sagayam 39.Siva 40.Divyan 41.Anthoni Vijayan 42.Sebasthiyan

43.Raja 44.Jesuraj 45.Nirmala 46.Samboornam 47.Kulandhai Therasu 48.Jeyarani 49.Anna Mary 50.Sakayamary 51.Rosali 52.Powlin Mary 53.Anthoniammal 54.Rosilin 55.Mathalai Mary ... Petitioners/Accused -Vs1.State rep by The Inspector of Police, Ambathurai Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Cr.No.252 of 2009) (On the file of Ambathurai Police Station, Dindigul) 2.The Sub Inspector of Police, Ambathurai Police Station, Dindigul District.

... Respondents No.1 & 2/ Complainants 1 & 2 3.S.Ganesan(V.A.O) S/o.Raman Village Administrative Office, A.Vellade, Dindigul District.

... Respondent No.3/Informant Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the charge sheet in S.T.C.No.42 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Nandakumar For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.P.G.Ohm Chairma Prabhu Government Advocate(Crl.side).

For R3 : Tapal Returned

ORDER

Having been taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 143 and 341 IPC, against the petitioners herein, they have come forward with the present petition.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 22.07.2009 at about 16.45 hours, the petitioners, who belonged to Cirunayakanpatty Village, have assembled and protest against the Government Scheme of allotting land to the blind near St.Thomayar Church. In order to protest against the said Scheme, the petitioners/accused have blocked the NH-7 Road at Pusphakiri Coffee Kodai Shop. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that on receiving information from Thalayari about the protest near Pusphakiri Coffee Shop, the Village Administrative Officer has informed the same to the respondent police and a case has been registered against the petitioners. He would further contend that except the official witnesses, no other individual persons have been examined to prove the case of the prosecution.

He would further contend that there is absolutely no material to prove the charge against the petitioners and among the petitioners, A2, A3 and A4 are the Parish Priest and they were not belonged to Cirunayakanpatty Parish council. He would further contend that all the accused persons were not present in the scene of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution and after warning of the Police Officials, the petitioners were dispersed from the place of occurrence. He would further contend that the petitioners assembled only to protest the action of the Government and not involved in any of the criminal activities. Further, there is absolutely no specific overt act against the petitioners.

Further the offence under Section 341 IPC could not attract as against the petitioners, since there is absolutely no material to make out the case for the offence under Section 341 IPC. Therefore, he prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that all the petitioners were assembled and protest against the Government Scheme for allotting the land to the blind. Therefore, they blocked NH-7 Road at Pusphakiri Coffee shop. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State. 6.It is seen that the charge is very simple in nature. Admittedly, the petitioners were assembled and protest as against the the Government Scheme for allotment of land to the blind. Admittedly, there is no other allegations against the petitioners. In respect of the offence under Section 341 IPC, there must be wrongfully restrained. Admittedly, the petitioners did not obstruct anybody, so as to prevent the said persons from proceedings in any direction. Therefore, the offence under Section 341 IPC is not all attracted. Further, the petitioners assembled only to protest the Government scheme, which would not amount to unlawful assembly. 7.Therefore, taking into consideration of the nature of charge against the petitioners and nature of allegations against the

petitioners, this Court is inclined to quash the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in S.T.C.No.42 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I) To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.

2.The Inspector of Police, Ambathurai Police Station, Dindigul District.

3.The Sub Inspector of Police, Ambathurai Police Station, Dindigul District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1CC to M/s.A.ARUL JENIFER, Advocate, SR.No. 81685 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.326 of 2014 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 31.08.2018 NS ES/PM/SAR 1/26.09.2018/4P/6C