Govarthanan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 21/12/2023
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.23208 of 2023 and Crl.MP(MD)No.18060 of 2023 Govarthanan : Petitioner/A38 Vs.
State through by 1.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, In Crime No.87/2018, Dindigul District. : R1/Complainant 2.Sub Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul District. : R2/De-facto Complainant PRAYER:- Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the charge sheet in STC No. 297 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, quash the same as against the petitioner/accused No.38 is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Criminal side) 1/8
O R D E R
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the case in STC No.297 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul. 2.The case of the prosecution in brief:- On 29/01/2018 at about 03.00 pm, the petitioner along with others unlawfully assembled near Dindigul Town Bridge and staged protect against the increase of bus fare without getting permission from the concerned authorities. Even though the police officials warned them to disperse, they did not oblige. Upon which, a case in Crime No.87 of 2018 was registered for the offences under sections 143 and 188 of IPC. After completing the formalities of investigation, charge sheet was filed and it was taken cognizance in STC No.297 of 2018 by the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.
3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that none of the allegations mentioned either in the FIR or charge sheet attract any of the ingredients of the offences alleged against him.
4.Heard both sides.
2/8
5.For attracting the offence under section 143 IPC, the ingredients of section 141 IPC must be fulfilled. 6.Section 141 IPC reads as under:- "Section 141.Unlawful assembly.-An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly:, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly isFirst-To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or Second-To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third.-To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or Fourth.-By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right: or 3/8
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.
Explanation.-An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly."
7.When we apply the ingredients to the factual position of the case, it is seen that none of the ingredients mentioned in 141 IPC get attracted. The petitioner along with others simply made protest against the raising of bus fare. It is a democratic right of every person to raise voice against the political or Government demanding legal action. Such a right has been exercised by the petitioner along-with others. So, that cannot be construed as 'unlawful or illegal'. 8.Section 188 IPC 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, 4/8
or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such directions, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends 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 extent to one month, or with fine which may extend to two handed rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends 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 extent to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation.-It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm.
It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.
9.Section 195 Crl.P.C is a bar for the police to register the FIR and investigate the matter in respect of 5/8
section 188 of IPC and file a report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. Section 195 of Cr.P.C stipulates that no court shall take cognizance of any of the offences under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the IPC, except on the complaint in writing with the public servant concerned or some of the public servant to whom administrative support.
10.No doubt that they are causing some sort of inconvenience to the public. For that, they ought to have proceeded under Madras City Police Act. But instead of doing so, they have been charged for the offences under sections 143, and 188 of IPC, which is not permissible under law. On that sole ground, the entire prosecution is bad in law.
11.In the result, this criminal original petition is allowed. The case in STC No.297 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul is hereby quashed as against the petitioner. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
21/12/2023 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er 6/8
To, 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Town South Police Station, Dindigul.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
7/8
G.ILANGOVAN, J er Crl.OP(MD)No.23208 of 2023 21/12/2023 8/8