1. This petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.633 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur and quash the same, in respect of the petitioners.

2. On the complaint lodged by Porkodi, the Inspector of Police (Law & Order) S-9, Palavanthangal Police Station, the Inspector of Police, St.Thomas Mount Police Station has registered a case in Cr.No.548 of 2017 on 13.04.2017 and after completing the investigation, has filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.633 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 143, 145, 147, 188, 189, 353 and 506(i) IPC against the petitioners herein, for quashing which, this application has been filed.

3. Heard Mr.R.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.Kritika Kamal, P., learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] for the State.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.04.2017, around 9.30 a.m., the accused herein, along with others, had formed an unlawful assembly on the either side of Kathipra flyover and blocked the ingress and egress of the flyover by tying steel chains across the entrance and exit of the flyover and when Porkodi, the lady Inspector of Police intervened, they pushed her and prevented her from discharging her duties. Hence, the FIR and the consequent charge sheet.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner is a famous film Director and that in order to highlight the plight of the farmers, the public demonstration was done, which cannot be termed as illegal. He submitted that in all democracies, when demonstrations take place, thoroughfares are blocked and no penal action is taken against the demonstrators. He cited the instance of lakhs of people gathering in the streets of Washington to demonstrate against President Trump. He further submitted that the de facto complainant in this case is a Police Officer and not any independent person and hence, a prosecution founded on the FIR given by a Police Officer should be quashed. It is his further contention that the provisions of IPC will not apply and only the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 will apply.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate [Crl.Side] submitted that there are 14 cases registered against the first petitioner in various Police Stations and that by blocking the Kathipara flyover, the accused had brought the whole city to a standstill and had further prevented the Inspector of Police from removing the chains which they had tied across the flyover.

7. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.

8. This Court is perfectly justified in taking judicial notice of the fact that Kathipara Junction and flyover is an arterial highway that connects the Airport to the city of Chennai. Several hospitals and Courts are located on either side of the flyover. The Air Force and the Army have their establishment on the southern side of Kathipara junction. Bearing this in mind, if one reads the final report and Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of the witnesses, it is seen that the accused herein, along with others, suddenly indulged in blockage of the flyover by putting chains across the entry and exit points around 9.30 a.m. on 13.04.2017, in the peak hour, and thereby, bringing the whole area to a standstill. The complaint of Porkodi, the Woman Inspector of Police shows that when she attempted to untie the chains, she was pushed and threatened by the accused. Though democracy recognises the right to dissent, yet, we are bound to act within the constitutional means, under which, right to form an assembly is not an absolute right and it is subject to certain restrictions. For example, in New Delhi, Jantar Mantar has been earmarked as the place for conducting demonstrations and protests. Similarly, in Chennai city, State Guest House area and Valluvar Kottam area have been earmarked for the said purpose. Had it been the idea of the accused to highlight the plight of the farmer