V.Maharajan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Thirunagar

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 18.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.17286 & 17287 of 2025 V.Maharajan, ... Petitioner Vs

1. State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, Thirunagar Police Station, Madurai District.

Crime No.64 of 2019.

2. Rajamani, ... Respondents PRAYER :- This Petition is filed under section 528 BNSS, to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.911 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai District and quash the same as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.Anand R., For Respondents : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 1/6

ORDER

The petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugned final report filed for the alleged offence under Sections 143, 341 and 353 I.P.C.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was a State President of a political party and the petitioner and others conducted protest without any permission and obstructed the traffic.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the gist of the allegations against the petitioner and others is that they held a demonstration without obtaining permission and causing traffic obstruction; and that their right to protest cannot be termed as causing wrongful restraint or unlawful assembly, and therefore, the impugned prosecution is liable to be quashed. He would rely upon the judgment of this Court in Jeevanandham and others vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District and another, reported in 2018-2-L.W.(Crl.) 606.

2/6

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent would reiterate the allegations in the final report and submit that the petitioner and other accused assembled in a public place and indulged in an illegal protest, and therefore, the aforesaid offences are made out, and sought for dismissal of this petition.

5. As stated earlier, the only allegation against the petitioner is that they had protested against a statement made by a political leader in a public place and that they had violated the order passed by a public servant.

6. The allegation, as stated earlier, is that the petitioner along with others had participated in a protest and thereby obstructed traffic. There is no allegation in the said F.I.R to attract the offence under Section 353 IPC. In order to attract Section 353 IPC, there must be an allegation that the petitioner assaulted or abused or used criminal force to any person, being a public servant, with an intent to prevent that person from discharging his duty. The essential ingredients of assault and use of 3/6

criminal force are absent in the allegations. As regards the offences under Sections 143, 341 I.P.C are concerned, this Court, in similar circumstances in the case of Jeevanandham and others vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District and another, dated 20.09.2018, rendered in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.1356 of 2018, etc., batch, held as follows:- Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos. 12684, 15710 and 15709 of 2018 41....

42. In all the cases, the assembly of persons were expressing dissatisfaction on thegovernance and claiming for minimum rights that are guaranteed to an ordinary citizen. If such an assembly of persons are to be trifled by registering an FIR under Section 143 of IPC and filing a Final Report for the very same offence, no democratic dissent can ever be shown by the citizens and such prohibition will amount to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. A reading of the Final Report also does not make out an offence under Section 341 of Cr.P.C. since any form of an agitation, will necessarily cause some hindrance to the movement of the general public for sometime. That by itself, does not constitute an offence of a wrongful restraint.

4/6

7. The above observations squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Hence, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the final report pending.

8. Accordingly, the impugned final report is hereby quashed and this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

18.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No LS TO

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Thirunagar Police Station, Madurai District.

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

5/6

SUNDER MOHAN,J LS CRL OP(MD) No.20432 of 2025 18.11.2025 6/6