← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/18582/2021allowed

Govintharaj v. The Inspector Of Police

2021-11-26Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan2 pages

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18582 of 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.11.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl.O.P(MD)No.18582 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.10263 of 2021 Govintharaj ... Petitioner / 7th Accused Vs 1.The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Sivagangai District.

... 1st Respondent / Complainant 2.Selvakumar Village Administrative Officer, K.K.Pallam Group, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai-630606 ... 2nd Respondent / Defacto Complainant PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned FIR in Crime No.244/2020 dated 06.10.2020 on the file of the first respondent police and quash the same against the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Karthik Kanna For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is figuring as the seventh accused in Crime No.244 of 2020 registered on the file of the first respondent for the offences under Sections 143, 269 and 270 of IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.10.2020, the petitioner along with the other accused in defiance of the prohibitory orders had illegally gathered during the lock down period. While I do not fault the first respondent for having registered the FIR, the question that arises is whether it should be allowed to stand. The Government of Tamil Nadu has taken a policy decision for dropping all the prosecutions that were lodged https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18582 of 2021 for breach of lock down restrictions. It is not the case of the respondents that any adverse consequence ensued as a result of the act committed by the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel states that the accused had gathered together for voicing their demand for deleting their community from the SC list. The petitioner did not indulge in any violent act.

4. I am therefore of the view that the continuation of the impugned prosecution is not warranted. FIR stands quashed. The benefit of this order will enure in favour of the non petitioning accused also. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) rmi 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, SIPCOT Police Station, Sivagangai District.

2.The Village Administrative Officer, K.K.Pallam Group, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivagangai-630606.

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

+1 CC to M/s.N. KARTHIKKANNA, Advocate (SR-36010[F] dated 26/11/2021) Crl.O.P(MD)No.18582 of 2021 26.11.2021 SMV(CO) SB(04.12.2021) 2P 5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2