Since, both these two petitions are inter-linked, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of by way of this common order.

1. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9577 of 2013 stand accused in C.C.No.14 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Trichy for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 341, 153(A), 294(b), 506(ii), 353, 120(b), 34 IPC r/w 7(1)(A) CLA Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.10.2012 at around 11.15 a.m., the petitioners herein assembled at Srirangam old bus stand, without getting prior permission eventhough prohibitory orders under Section 30(2) of the Police Act were in force. The Assembly was pursuant to the call given by Periyar Dravida Kazhaham to agitate against the naming of the restaurant run by one Krishnan at Srirangam in the name and style of “Sri Krishna Iyyar Traditional Bramanal Cafe”. The said organisation had given a call for defacing the name board.

3. According to the prosecution, the petitioners shouted provocative slogans against the Brahmin community. They marched towards the said hotel. They prevented others and members of the general public from going to the Cafe. When the police stopped the petitioners, the petitioners pushed them away and also criminally intimidated the police. They also used abusive words against the police. Therefore, Crime No.891 of 2012 was registered on the file of Srirangam Police Station, based on the information lodged by one A.Arun, Sub Inspector of Police, Government Hospital Police Station, Trichy. The first respondent conducted investigation and filed final report. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the final report against the petitioners Ramakrishnan, Saravanan, Seeni Viduthalai Arasu, Prabakaran and Saiprakash for the offences under Sections 7(1)(A) of CLA Act and 506(ii) of IPC., and against all the petitioners under Sections 143, 188, 341, 153(A), 294(b), 506(ii), 353, 120(b), 34 IPC r/w 7(1)(A) CLA Act. Contending that the learned Trial Magistrate erred in taking the final report on file and issuing summons to them, the present petitions have been filed for quashing the said proceedings.

4. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.9578 of 2013 are 4 in number. The allegations against them are also broadly similar. They are also figuring as accused in the other case. The occurrence time alone is different. Crime No.893 of 2012 was registered on the file of the Srirangam Police Station, on the information lodged by one Renu Ganthan, Sub Inspector of Police of the very same police station. It is pending at the committal stage.

5. Heard Mr.S.Duraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions and Mr.G.Robinson, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent police in both the petitions.

6. In both the cases, Section 153-A of IPC has been invoked against the petitioners. But, then as per Section 196 of Cr.P.C., no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 153-A of IPC., except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or the State Government. In these cases, it is the specific contention of the petitioners that the previous sanction of the Government has not been obtained. This Court went through the materials on record. The order of sanction is not enclosed with the final report. Therefore, the Court below could not have taken the final report on file. Therefore, this Court concurs with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that taking the final report on file insofar as Section 153-A of IPC is concerned is bad in law.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also contended that there is no material to show that the offence under Section 143 of IPC was committed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that to attract Section 143 of IPC., it must be shown that the petitioners constituted an unlawful assembly. Section 141 of IPC defines what is an unlawful assembly. It is the co