← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/16730/2019allowed

S. Ramachandra Pradeep v. The Inspector Of Police

2019-11-15Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.11.2019

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.O.P(MD) No. 16730 of 2019 and CRL.M.P (MD) No. 9914 of 2019 S. Ramachandra Pradeep ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs.

State rep. by The Inspector of police, Town Police Station, Usilampatti, Madurai District.

(Crime No. 55 of 2017) ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the First Information Report in Crime No. 55 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police and quash the same as against the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.M. Murugesan For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the the First Information Report in Crime No.55 of 2017 on the file of the first respondent police.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.01.2017 the petitioner along with 49 others were made unlawful assembly in public place and raise slogan agaisnt the state for the issue of Jallikattu and to ban the betta. On the basis of the above said allegation, the respondent police registered the complaint and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the offence under Section 143 & 188 of IPC in Crime No. 55 of 2017.

3. According to the petitioner, he is innocent and 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. When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, under Sections 143 & 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioner and 49 others. Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding. 1/4

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner and his men were raised the slogan against the State and therefore, there is specific allegation as against the petitioner 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. Perused the material documents available on record.

6. On perusal of the charge, it is seen that the petitioner raised slogan against the State. Therefore the respondent police levelled the charge under Sections 143 & 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioner. Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charges against the petitioner. It is also seen from the charge itself that the charges are very simple in nature and trivial. Section 188 reads as follows:

"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.

7.The only question for consideration is that whether the registration of case under Section 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 2/4

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 offence under Section 188 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. Therefore, the FIR cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed. Further, the complaint does not even state as to how the petitioner has raised slogan against the State and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC. Therefore, the FIR cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.

9.Accordingly, the proceedings in Crime No. 55 of 2017, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

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

1. The Inspector of police, Town Police Station, Usilampatti, Madurai District.

3/4

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

CRL.O.P(MD) No. 16730 of 2019 15.11.2019 al(CO) TR(07.01.2020)4P 3C 4/4