N.R.Dhanabalan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.10.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and CRL.M.P (MD)2271 of 2018 1.N.R.Dhanabalan 2.Vairam @ Violet Dhanabalam 3.G.Arasan 4.L.Ravi @ Dinger L Ravi 5.T.Murugan 6.T.Gurupatham 7.C.Senthil Kumar 8.Selvakumar 9.T.Manikandan 10.N.Robin 11.N.Jestin Anand 12.T.Murugesan 13.M.Jeevarathinam 14.D.Pitchaimani 15.A.Chellappan 16.Dr.A.Dharmaraj 17.T.Mohan 18.S.M.Gurusamy 19.J.Asaithambi 20.M.A.M.Balaji 21.M.Manivasagam 22.Sivakumar 23.S.V.R.Vijaymaris 24.G.Santhanam 25.R.Victor Vijay 26.T.Solaiyappan 27.V.T.Dharmaraj 28.R.V.D.Ramaiah 29.M.Ramaraj 30.R.Achuthan 31.P.Prabakran 32.S.Joseph Arockiya Rasaiah
33. M.Elango 34.A.Ravi 35.R.Ravichandran 36.R.R.Singh @ Rejisingh 37.G.Marikani 38.M.Santhakumar 39.S.Thirumalaichamy'
1/5
40.K.Duraichamy 41.S.M.Vellathurai 42.D.Dharmaseelan 43.G.Dennis ... Petitioners Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by The Inspector of Police Valliyoor Police Station Tirunelveli District
2. S.Sajeev ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the entire records and quash the First Information Report in Crime No.124 of 2018 dated 25.02.2018 on the file of the first respondent police under alleged sections 143,188 and 283 of IPC.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi No.1 Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.124 of 2018 dated 25.02.2018 on the file of the first respondent police under alleged sections 143,188 and 283 of IPC 2.
The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners got permission only for conducting Executive Committee Meeting and General Council Meeting for their political party on 25.02.2018 between 11.00 a.m to 4.45 p.m at SVP Mahal, Valliyoor from the concerned authorities but before conducting meeting the petitioners conducted a procession from entrance of Valliyoor ie., near to the Concordia Higher Secondary School to the venue of the meeting without getting any permission. On the basis of the above said allegation, the respondent police registered the complaint and filed a First Information Report against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 143,188 and 283 of IPC in Crime No.124 of 2018. 3.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocents. According to Section 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., no Court can take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of IPC, unless the public servant has written order from the authority. Further he submitted that the petitioners or any other members had never involved in any unlawful assembly and there is no 2/5
evidence that the petitioners or others restrained anybody. However, the officials of the respondent police had beaten the petitioners and others. When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, under Sections 143,188 and 283 of IPC as against the petitioners and others. Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding. 4.
Per contra, the learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioners got permission only for conducting Executive Committee Meeting and General Council Meeting for their political party on 25.02.2018 between 11.00 a.m to 4.45 p.m at SVP Mahal, Valliyoor from the concerned authorities but before conducting meeting the petitioners conducted a procession from entrance of Valliyoor ie., near to the Concordia Higher Secondary School to the venue of the meeting without getting any permission and there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to proceed with the trial. Further, he would submit that Section 188 of IPC is a cognizable offence and therefore it is the duty of the police to register a case. Though there is a bar under Section 195 (a)(i) of Cr.P.C. to take cognizance for the offence under Section 188 of IPC, it does not mean that the police cannot register FIR and investigate the case. Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same. 5.
Heard Mr.P.M.Vishnu Varthanan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent. 6.
On perusal of the charge, it is seen that the petitioners conducted a procession from entrance of Valliyoor ie., near to the Concordia Higher Secondary School to the venue of the meeting without getting any permission . Therefore the respondent police levelled the charges under Sections 143,188 and 283 of IPC of I.P.C. as against the petitioners and others. Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charges against the petitioners. It is also seen from the charge itself that the charges are very simple in nature and trivial. Section 188 reads as follows: "188.
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.
7.
The only question for consideration is that whether the registration of case under Sections 143, 188 IPC, registered by the respondent is permissible under law or not? In this regard it is relevant to extract Section 195(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 :- "195.Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Courts hall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive)of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii)of any abetment of, attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;..."
Therefore, it is very clear that for taking cognizance of the offences under Section 188 of IPC, the public servant should lodge a complaint in writing and other than that no Court has power to take cognizance.
8.
In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143,188 and 283 of IPC. He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC. As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC. Further, the complaint does not even state as to how the protest formed by the petitioners and others is an unlawful protest and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC. Therefore, the final report cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.
9.
Accordingly, the proceedings in Crime No. 124 of 2018, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, 4/5
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) AAV To:
1.The Inspector of Police Valliyoor Police Station Tirunelveli District
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
and CRL.M.P (MD)2271 of 2018 01.10.2019 JMN(21.10.2019) 5P : 3C 5/5