Shakul Hameedu @ Sahulhameed v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Vilakkuthoon
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Crl.O.P.(MD).No.20845 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.17745 and 17746 of 2025 1.Shakul Hameedu @ Sahulhameed 2.Sikkandar 3.Mohamed Ali Jinna 4.Nagoorkani 5.Jamalmydeen 6.Nijam 7.Sakul Hameed 8.Syed Sulthan 9.Appas Ali 10.Abuthalka 11.Shiek Abdulla 12.Abdu Kaboor 13.Jailani 14.Ibrahim Sai 1/11
15.Batcha 16.Nasar Hussain 17.Akbar Husain 18.Burosh Khan 19.Silkkandar 20.Mohamed Saleem 21.Beer Mohamed 22.Kathar Meeran 23.Kamal 24.Ahamed Jaludeen 25.Noor Mohamed 26.Abdul Lathif 27.Ajmalkhan 28.Mohamed Ibrahim 29.Sheik Ibrahim 30.Syed Ibrahim 31.Mohamed Appas 32.Raja Hussain 33.Abdul Kaboor 34.Mohamed Appas Ali 2/11
35.Raja Mohamed 36.Syed Mohamed 37.Abdul Kathar Jailani 38.Syed Ibrahim 39.Arifkhan 40.Riyasudeen 41.Aaseeth 42.Siddhik 43.Paseer 44.Ayupkhan 45.Abdulraguman 46.Rajabeer 47.Sheik Abdulla 48.Batacha 49.Thjetheen 50.Ammer Appas 51.Hakkim 52.Mugamathu Kurchip 53.Nazar 54.Ismayil 3/11
55.Prem Nazir 56.Sultan Alavuthu 57.Appas 58.Jams Apdula 59.Rajamugamathu 60.Sayebula 61.Haji Ali 62.Apdul Zalil 63.Umar Mugthar 64.Arasath Agamathu 65.Sulthan Meeran 66.Jagir Hussain 67.Ibrakim Babu 68.Sirajideen 69.Sirajideen 70.Tharsa Begam 71.Aprin 72.Yasmin Rusha 73.Sahila Begam 74.Rasia Begam 4/11
75.Raviyath 76.Mydeen Banu 77.Abitha Begam 78.Sarmila Banu 79.Nilabar Nisha 80.Syed Raviath 81.Jesina 82.Mumthaj 83.Rasia Begam 84.Ramjan Begam 85.Sayetha 86.Sikkandarbanu 87.Linothbeevi 88.Fathima 89.Sirahi Nisha 90.Reema Paris 91.Abirose Banu 92.Paseera 93.Thajnisha 94.Sikkandarammal 5/11
95.Nagoorammal 96.Asanbath 97.Sekanas 98.Jesima 99.Bismi Nisha 100.Kathijabeevi 101.Nisha 102.Rahmath Nisha 103.Mumtaj 104.Syed Ali Fathima 105.Sarpu Nisha 106.Chithiga Bagam 107.Nainama 108.Hachinabagam ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 109 Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by, The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vilakkuthoon Police Station, Madurai City.
(In Crime No.57 of 2022) ... Respondent/Complainant 6/11
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the entire records in S.T.C.No.703 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners/Accused.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Rajamohamed For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the impugned final report in S.T.C.No.703 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, which was filed for the offences under Section 143, 188 and 341 of IPC.
2. The allegation in the final report 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 7/11
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 unauthorised protest and caused obstruction to traffic, besides causing nuisance and disturbance to the general public; and therefore, the impugned final report 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, 341 and 188 of IPC, this Court had held as follows:
8/11
'' Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.12684, 15710 and 15709 of 2018 41.In all these cases, a Final Report has been 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.
42. In all the cases, the assembly of persons were expressing dissatisfaction on the governance 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 IPC 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. ''
The above observations of this Court would squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. Hence, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the prosecution.
9/11
7. Since the allegation does not constitute any of the offences, this Court is of the view that the impugned final report in S.T.C.No.703 of 2025 is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.
8. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 25.11.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No Lm To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Madurai.
2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vilakkuthoon Police Station, Madurai City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
10/11
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Lm Crl.O.P.(MD).No.20845 of 2025 25.11.2025 11/11