S.Muthuramalingam v. Sub Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.03.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.2746 of 2020 1.XXXXX 2.S.Siva ... Petitioners / A1 & A2 -vs1.The State of Tamilnadu, represented by its Sub Inspector of Police, Manoor Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.110 of 2015) 2.Selvakumar ... Respondents / Complainants PRAYER :

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.110 of 2015 pending on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same. For Petitioners :

Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan For R1 :

Mr.A.Robinson Government Advocate (Crl.side)

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent. 2.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed for quashing the First Information Report in Crime No.110 of 2015 registered on the file of the Manoor Police Station for the offences under Section 160 of IPC. The First Information Report reads that the petitioners herein were spraying ink on each other and pushing each other down in a public street and they did not pay heed to the warning issued by the police and caused alarm among the members of the public. The second respondent, therefore, arrested both of them and registered the impugned First Information Report under Section 160 of IPC. 1 / 3

3.It is seen that the First Information Report was registered way back on 20.03.2015. More than five years have elapsed. It is still pending at the First Information Report Stage. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and wanted this Court to quash the impugned First Information Report. 5.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the police had taken precautionary action to avoid further trouble. 6.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The first petitioner S.Muthuramalingam was born on 03.05.1998. The second petitioner Siva was born on 14.02.1997.The First Information Report was registered on 20.03.2015. On the said date, the second petitioner Siva had technically attained the age of majority. But then, the first petitioner herein was very much a minor. Therefore, no First Information Report could have been registered against the first petitioner. The very registration of the First Information Report against the first petitioner is illegal.

7.That apart, it is seen even from the First Information Report that the occurrence had taken place on the last date of the academic year. This Court can take a judicial notice of the fact that at least in the State of Tamilnadu, the school children have the habit of spraying ink on each others clothes on the first day of April and again on the last day of the academic year. It is something that is done out of feeling or sheer jubilation. By no stretch of imagination can it constitute affray. Section 159 of IPC defines 'Affray' as follow:

" 159. Affray - When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to "commit an affray". "

As per the aforesaid definition, there are as many as four ingredients. 1) it should involve two or more persons. 2) They must fight between or among themselves. 3) the fight should take place in a public places and 4) it should disturb the public peace. 8.In the case on hand, the first petitioner was a juvenile. Spraying of ink on each other cannot constitute or amount to a fighting. In any event, it cannot be said to cause disturbance of public peace. In the case on hand, the ingredients of affray are wholly absent.

9.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the order dated 27.09.2018 made in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17260 of 2018. A learned Judge of this Court went to the extent of holding that even if there was a fight between two parties, that cannot give 2 / 3

rise to an automatic presumption that it has resulted in disturbance of the public peace.

10.I am clearly of the view that the very registration of the impugned First Information Report is an abuse of legal process. In this view of the matter, the impugned First Information Report stands quashed and this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. 11.It is made clear that the registration of the impugned First Information Report will not be put against the petitioners for any reason whatsoever. In other words, the mere registration of the First Information Report will not constitute disqualification for the petitioners to apply for any public employment. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar () // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Note:

When the Registry issues the certified copy, the name of the first petitioner shall remain suppressed. His identity shall not be disclosed.

To 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Manoor Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.G.KARUPPASAMYPANDIAN, Advocate ( SR-12890[F] dated 23/03/2020 ) 23.03.2020 pnn SDS (30.06.2020) 3P-4C 3 / 3