Mydeen Sait Khan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Melapalayam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 03/11/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P(MD) No.15639 of 2025
1. Mydeen Sait Khan
2. Rasool Mydeen
3. Nainar Mohamed
4. Mohamed Yousuf Sulthan
5. Rasool Haja Mydeen
6. Mohamed Yaseer
7. Rasul Mydeen
8. Nijam Mohideen
9. Navas Sarif
10. Mohamed Abubakkar Siddiq
11. Syed Abdul Kader
12. Mohideen Bathusha
13. Mohamed Azarudeen 1/7
14. Kaja
15. Shahul Hameed Badusha
16. Asan Mohideen ... Petitioners Vs 1.The Inspector of Police, Melapalayam, Police Station, Tirunelveli City.
Crime No. 413 of 2018.
2. Kasipandian, Sub-Inspector of Police, Melapalayam Police Station, Tirunelveli City.
... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No. 413 of 2018 on the file of the 1st respondent police and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Althaf, M/s.Ajmal Associates For R1 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.413 of 2018, on the file of first respondent, 2/7
which was registered for the offences under Sections 296(b) 143, 188, 341 and 353 of IPC.
2. The allegation in the FIR is that the petitioners, along with others, indulged in a protest without valid permission and caused nuisance and disturbance to the general public, besides causing obstruction to traffic.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners, along with others, were exercising their right to assemble peacefully, which could not, by any stretch of imagination, constitute the offences alleged. He would rely upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jeevanandham and others vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District and another, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 13698 in support of his submissions. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, per contra, would submit that the petitioners, along with others, participated in an unauthorized protest and caused obstruction to 3/7
traffic, besides causing nuisance and disturbance to the general public; and therefore, the impugned FIR is justified. 5.Admittedly, the petitioners, along with others, participated in a protest. The question is whether such an act would constitute the offences alleged by the prosecution.
6.In the case of Jeevanandham, referred to supra, which related to a protest without valid permission and when the accused had filed quash petition of the final report filed for the offences under Sections 143, 188 and 341 of IPC, this Court had held as follows: Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 15655 of 2018
40. In this case, an FIR has been registered as against 102 persons for an offence under Section 341, 143 and 188 of IPC. A reading of the FIR does not make out an offence under Section 341 and 143 of IPC. No FIR can be registered by the respondent Police for an offence under Section 188 of IPC Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No. 99 of 2018 is hereby quashed and Crl.O.P. No. 15655/2018 stands allowed.
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos. 12684, 15710 and 15709 of 2018
41. In all these cases, a Final Report has been 4/7
filed for an offence under Section 143, 341 and 188 of IPC. A Final Report cannot be filed for an offence under Section 188 of IPC, and the Court below ought not to have been taken cognizance. In view of the above discussion, the Final Report insofar as an offence under Section 188 IPC is concerned is hereby quashed. Insofar as the offence under Section 143 IPC is concerned, the allegation is that the assembly had raised slogans demanding for the rights of the farmers, and expressed opposition not to establish a godown and this according to the Police was done, when there was a prohibitory order under Section 30 (2) of the Police Act, 1861. In the considered view of this Court, this will not constitute an offence under Section 143 of IPC.
7.The above observations of this Court would squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. Further, there is no allegation of assault or criminal force to deter any public servant from discharging his duty although there is allegation that the second respondent was prevented from performing his duty. In the absence of assault or criminal force, the offence under Section 353 of IPC would not be made out. 8.Since the allegation does not constitute any of the offences, this 5/7
Court is of the view that the impugned FIR in Crime No.413 of 2018, on the file of the first respondent, is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.
9. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 03.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No cp TO 1.The Inspector of Police, Melapalayam, Police Station, Tirunelveli City.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
SUNDER MOHAN,J CP
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.18851 of 2025 Date : 03/11/2025 7/7