Mohamed Ibrahim v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.12.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU Crl.O.P(MD)No.14758 of 2020 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.6981 of 2020 Mohamed Ibrahim
...Petitioner/Accused No.1
Vs 1.The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai.
(In Crime No.1955 of 2020) ..Respondent No.1/ Complainant 2.Mr.C.Sakthi Manikandan ..Respondent No.2/Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned First Information Report in Crime Number.1955 of 2020, on the file of the respondent No.1 Police station and quash as against the petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanidhi For R1 : Ms.V.Neelakandan Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side)
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned First Information Report in Crime Number.1955 of 2020, on the file of the respondent No.1 Police station and quash as against the petitioner is concerned.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitione and others had conducted a demonstration on 12.09.2020, following the death of one Jothi Sree Durga, who committed suicide due to NEET examination, without getting permission from concerned officials. Hence, the 2nd respondent has given complaint, based on which, a case in Crime No.1955 of 2020 was registered on 12.09.2020, for the offences under Sections 143, 269 & 270 IPC. 3.When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) for the 1st respondent/Police would 1/4
state that the above issue in hand is covered by the order passed by this Court in CRL.OP(MD)No.3770 of 2012, dated 06.06.2018, wherein, this Court has held as follows:- 4.This Court is of the view that Section 188 of IPC can be invoked only if there has been a disobedience of a duly promulgated order by a public servant. The said provision reads as under :
"188.Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes to tender to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
5.It is not in dispute that during the relevant time no prohibitory order was in force. The petitioner had obtained permission to conduct the demonstration. Again, to make out an offence under Section 143 of IPC, it must be shown that the petitioner was a member of an unlawful assembly. What is unlawful assembly is defined in Section 141 of IPC. The said provision reads as under : "141.
or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or Fifth - By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do."
6.It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner exhibited criminal force or his object was to overawe by criminal force the Government officials. He did not resist the execution of any law or any legal process. He did not commit any criminal mischief or any criminal trespass or any other offence. No where it is shown in the final report that the object to the assembly of which the petitioner constituted a part would fall under Section 141 of IPC.
7.Therefore, this Court is of the view that the offences under Section 143 is clearly not made made out. That apart, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner disobedience per se will not attracted Section 188 of IPC. It must be shown that on account of such disobedience on the part of the petitioner of a duly promulgated order by a public servant, something adverse happened. In this case, no such event is alleged to have happened. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Section 188 of IPC is also not made out.
8.This Court is clearly of the view that even if all the averments set out in the final report are taken as true, no case is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.146 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti are quashed.
4.The petitioner herein also stands in the same footing and therefore, the above order is squarely applicable to the petitioner also. Therefore, the impugned First Information Report in Crime Number.1955 of 2020, on the file of the respondent No.1 is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CRL.SIDE) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) 3/4
vrn NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To:
1.The Inspector of Police, State, Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai City, Madurai.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 cc to Mr.R.Karunanidhi , Advocate SR.No.25671 Crl.O.P(MD)No.14758 of 2020 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.6981 of 2020 15.12.2020 KM (07.01.2021) 4P 4C 4/4